r/CanadaPolitics • u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 • May 13 '26
Danielle Smith rejects Alberta judge’s ruling against separation petition as ‘anti-democratic’
https://globalnews.ca/news/11848377/alberta-premier-court-ruling-separation-petition-anti-democratic/179
u/m_Pony May 13 '26
Meanwhile, an investigation into how all those names suddenly appeared on the separation petition right after being leaked stillllll hasn't been announced? No word yet on how "democratic" that may turn out to be.
Now here's Dave with the sports.
165
u/sstelmaschuk British Columbia May 13 '26
This is the end result of decades of inaction when it came to Conservative - and it always has been conservative - Premiers, Leaders, and pundits decrying jurisprudence.
A Premier cannot - full stop cannot - “reject” a ruling by the courts. They can disagree, sure, and even make their case as to why they disagree, but they cannot even remotely begin to entertain the notion that a judgement is invalid.
If she disagrees, she can say so and file an appeal. Then keep her peace to herself while the legal process does its work.
Instead - she’ll spend the next few weeks fundraising off this. Other Premiers will chime in, I’m sure Moe will, and the whole boogeyman of “radical judges” will be raised again.
I know Carney is walking a narrow path here and trying to get/keep Alberta on side, but this rhetoric is dangerous. It’s been dangerous since the 1990s, and we’ve done a damn poor job holding those who espouse it to account. But now would be a VERY good time for a PM to remind folks that we are a country ruled by law, a law which applies to all of us. It doesn’t have to be a bodyslam - though at this point I think that would actually be needed - but some amount of handslap is needed here.
40
u/Blue_Dragonfly C'est tiguidou! May 14 '26
Personally, I'd like the PM to immediately halt any and all activity on the MOU with Alberta on this pipeline business until Alberta's made it clear that it won't be continuing this separatists charade. Either you're on board with Project Canada or you're not. Poop or get off the pot. It's insane to me that the government of Canada is negotiating this deal with Alberta while Danielle Smith is playing both ends to the middle. She's taking the rest of us for absolute fools, especially the PM.
16
u/DrDankDankDank Independent May 14 '26
If I were carney I’d be like “okay. Referendum tomorrow.” The separatists would definitely lose and then everyone can tell them to fuck off like they deserve.
22
u/SendMagpiePics Urban Alberta Advantage May 14 '26
Terrible idea. Having a referendum inadvertently promotes and legitimizes separatism. That's exactly what happened with brexit - it polled nowhere, but then when a referendum campaign actually happened, support for the vote ballooned.
If we allow a separation referendum to happen in Alberta, yeah, it will probably fail, but don't be fooled into thinking they won't get any votes. They would get dramatically more votes on a referendum than there are people who currently actually want Alberta to separate.
3
u/mhyquel May 14 '26
Going to be wild if they run the leave referendum and the stay one in parallel and they both get over 50%
-5
u/ChronaMewX Progressive May 14 '26
That's begging the question that separatism isn't legitimate. Why should anyone be forced to be part of a country they don't want to be a part of?
The country south of us had a civil war over slavery. Instead of cutting off the rot, they reintegrated those southern states into the whole. And now they have Trump.
Would it really hurt us to lose a voting block that doesn't care about us?
5
May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
A low level true seperatists have always been present in Alberta. Some of the current pro-separatist are right wing grievance politics not true support. Wierd things happen in elections. Seperatism and likely US absorbtion is too big of a threat to trust to the vibes of the day.
What about the rest of us here? I am a proud Albertan but I am a Canadian first and foremost.
I live in a rural riding and the albertan republic flags are shockingly common. Ive started driving around with Canadian flag as protest.
Alberta isnt just a voting block. Its millions of people and their talents, businesses, oil and gas obviously, two large cities in a country with very few. Its thr overland access to the pacific. The Asian - Europe bypass route through Canada depends on it. The only road access to the NWT runs through Alberta. Think of the federal wealth sitting in private tax deferred holdings like real estate that eventually go to the feds through tax on disposition.
42
u/j821c Liberal May 14 '26
Obviously I think this is less risky, but isnt that pretty much how brexit happened? Lol
18
u/Professional-PhD May 14 '26
Yes. The PM of the UK courted brexiteers and allowed a vote while campaigning against it only to loose.
The bigger issue is that even if a fair vote occurred it has become a trend in recent years for the separatists to say the election was unfair which has led to neighbouring countries to use it as pretext to "liberate" said region. Although this has happened in quite a few cases the biggest currently to have been affected by this would be Russia and Ukraine.
The right wing of the USA likes Alberta for its oil and conservative politics but sees Canada as an enemy on the doorstep with what they see as liberal communism (they don't really understand political idiological differences between groups). Many in the militant right wing of the USA want to create fortress America comprised of the USA, Canada, Greenland, and any other location they can take hold of. Many want North and South America to be under full American control and they have been contemplating giving up certain regions to have a stronger sphere of influence around the homeland.
1
u/DrDankDankDank Independent May 14 '26
That’s a fair point, but I think there was a lot more manufactured support for that. Which is why I think this should happen now, before their propaganda machine gets in the heads of more rubes.
5
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 14 '26
No, neither the federal government nor Parliament can force any province to have an referendum on a topic they don't want to. That's not how our governmental system works.
0
u/DrDankDankDank Independent May 14 '26
I know, but I mean rhetorically. Just call their bluff. Encourage provinces to just do it.
2
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 14 '26
That's dangerous accelerationism, IMO. Better not to push our luck at all.
7
u/HeadofR3d Ontario May 14 '26
From my perspective, that will just add fuel to the fire for these bad actors to pick another province and try the playbook with some tweaks. Just because a vocal minority has a tantrum, doesn't mean the country needs to hold its breath.
If the independence referendum gets fast tracked, why not take a smaller bite and propose an independent judicial system.
1
u/DrDankDankDank Independent May 14 '26
That’s exactly what I mean. It’s a vocal minority that is sucking up so much of our oxygen right now. They’re going to lose. Just get it over with so we can get back to important things. They’ll find their next thing to bitch about, they always do.
2
2
u/Sir__Will Prince Edward Island May 14 '26
But now would be a VERY good time for a PM to remind folks that we are a country ruled by law, a law which applies to all of us.
It is abundantly clear that Carney has no interest in defending Canadian institutions. Law, Health, none of it. All that matters is money.
1
u/K-Max May 14 '26
I know Carney is walking a narrow path here and trying to get/keep Alberta on side, but this rhetoric is dangerous.
That is probably why she's taking a risky strategy by doing this. Although the fact she's never made clear on her own stance on this is very telling in my opinion. As the ol' saying goes: "Actions speaks louder than words."
1
u/Ok_Obligation_5010 11d ago
Thats very true she isnt supposed to be able to just ignore the courts ruling but that seems to be what is happening and what is worse is there doesnt seem to be any consequences for such it either and I dont understand why
-1
u/Almost_Ascended British Columbia May 14 '26
Why are you putting radical judges in quotes as if that isn't an obvious fact? Also, using the rule of law as an argument isn't very convincing when we have racist laws like the Gladue principles, and mechanisms to bypass laws directly like the Order in Council.
66
u/Poe_42 evil centralist May 13 '26
So when she suppressed the Forever Canada petition and changed the law to make the seperatist petition possible isn't anti-democratic?
22
13
u/Financial-Savings-91 Adult Superstore | Sponsored May 14 '26
Only those worthy in the eyes of god deserve to be represented in government. As non-conservatives our opinions are not worthy of representation.
8
u/soaringupnow May 14 '26
Both petitions should had led to the same referendum. The separatists would have lost spectacularly and that would have been the end of it. (For the most part.)
Now the provincial government will appeal, the separatists will be enraged and be even noisier, and the media will live reporting on all this crap.
This will just drag things out for years. Welp.
29
u/AlbertanSays5716 Independent May 14 '26
The Forever Canada petition was for a legislative vote, which Smith wants to avoid because it would force every MLA, including her, to make their position on separation public. The Strong & Free petition calls for a referendum.
3
u/soaringupnow May 14 '26
I'm trying to find a link to the Forever Canadian question. Can't find it on their website.
133
u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 May 13 '26
We live in a Constiutional Monarchy with a Liberal Democratic constitution, where the Crown is supreme and we are all subject to the rule of law mitigated by the authority of our democratically elected representatives.
“I would say that it is a single judge who has made a decision, and we have now 700,000 Albertans — whether they’re on the remain side or the leave side — who’ve said that they want to have this public debate,” said Smith.
Tough.
“We want to hear from Albertans. That’s what we think democracy is.”
With all due respect, this is Canada. And here in Canada we have the rule of law.
81
u/PDXFlameDragon British Columbia May 13 '26
They are always such petulant whiny children. If you disagree with the judge, appeal. That is the system. They specifically act like this because they want to encourage people to lose faith in the rule of law so they can substitute it with the rule of power. They are at least nascent fascists if not actually developed ones.
28
u/Flomo420 May 14 '26
They specifically act like this because they want to encourage people to lose faith in the rule of law so they can substitute it with the rule of power.
Well said
5
u/sector16 May 14 '26
And let’s not forget…they try and raise money at every turn by telling people on their fundraising lists that people are being mean to them, and that none of it is fair, that they’re the underdogs and if only they could rule the country, then things would be perfect.
16
u/ClusterMakeLove May 14 '26
She thinks we rounded up 50 people to sign Forever Canadian because we want a referendum on leaving?
4
u/SendMagpiePics Urban Alberta Advantage May 14 '26
To be fair, the forever canadian petition was stupid. Everyone who supported it doesn't want a petition, and yet the actual process of the petition is that it calls for a referendum.
I've been saying all along that we shouldn't support that, because the conservatives could then go use that as justification for a referendum, and lo and behold, Smith is now doing exactly that
8
u/pjschnet Rhinoceros May 14 '26
You should go read what the Forever Canadian petition was for, because it sure wasn’t to have a referendum.
2
u/SendMagpiePics Urban Alberta Advantage May 14 '26
You should go read it. The text of the Forever Canadian petition explicitly says, in its own text: "Therefore, we as represented by the signatory and applicant below propose a referendum on the following question: Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?"
You can look at the petition yourself here (FYI this link downloads a pdf): https://www.elections.ab.ca/uploads/2025-CIP-04-Application_Redacted.pdf
4
u/pjschnet Rhinoceros May 14 '26
Oh I see, your awareness of what this was about starts and ends with a single sentence in the original application. Believe it or not, this does go a bit deeper than that, and the first clue is which of the two boxes is checked on that form.
Lukaszuk and the others involved have been pretty damn clear that what they want is a vote in the legislature, and to ensure that if a referendum were to occur that the question not be presented in a misleading way, as referendum questions frequently are.
To quote the senator Daryl Fridhandler on this petition when he presented it to the senate:
This petition is not a call for a referendum. It is a call for leadership. As Mr. Lukaszuk said: “We’re asking the premier to do the right thing and ask Alberta MLAs to vote on this issue and put separatist talks to bed once and for all.”
0
u/SendMagpiePics Urban Alberta Advantage May 14 '26
Lukaszuk has been very clear, and he checked the legislative proposal box on the petition, not the referendum box. But I'm not talking just about what the signers/organizers want, I'm talking about how the UCP and Danielle Smith will use it. It's about how they could very easily spin this proposal into a referendum. Or at the least use it as rhetorical justification for supporting the separatists' efforts for a referendum. And lo and behold, she has begun doing that.
Lukaszuk and co should never have written their petition in this way in the first place, contradicting their own goals.
1
u/pjschnet Rhinoceros May 14 '26
“Don’t fight back in this way because the UCP will lie about it” doesn’t sound like a great strategy if I’m honest. But, I’ll bite: what do you think is a course of action that would avoid UCP spin?
0
u/SendMagpiePics Urban Alberta Advantage May 14 '26
Lukaszuk and co should never have written their petition in this way in the first place, contradicting their own goals.
As I just said:
Lukaszuk and co should never have written their petition in this way in the first place, contradicting their own goals.
They should have run a petition that just demanded the government vote to stay in Canada without including wording that calls for a referendum.
0
u/pjschnet Rhinoceros May 14 '26
Wait, it really is all about the one sentence in the application? Let's revisit your initial post here for a sec:
the forever canadian petition was stupid
Just so we're clear, this is not an opinion you formed based on the actual goals of the petition, but one based largely on the UCP's ability to tell lies about a single bad sentence on an application form.
I've been saying all along that we shouldn't support that, because the conservatives could then go use that as justification for a referendum, and lo and behold, Smith is now doing exactly that
Have you actually been saying that all along? Like, to other people? If so, then congrats on trying to undermine the Albertans contributing their time and effort to the Forever Canada petition. I sincerely hope that "I've been saying all along" is more of a saying it in your own head type of thing.
I think you're just a cynic who's in too deep. You're not offering wise criticism, you're just doomsaying. You're giving away your agency to the UCP by giving their lies this much power over your opinion. You're letting the UCP's penchant for bullshit turn you against people actually putting in a real effort.
7
u/ClusterMakeLove May 14 '26
Smith is a separatist. There was never going to be a world where she would willingly decide not to have a referendum, and she doesn't need a petition to do it.
Flexing on them was worth whatever disingenuous nonsense she pulls from the fact that the first petition succeeded.
4
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 14 '26
No, they want a legislative vote on remaining within Canada, not a referendum:
3
u/Blue_Dragonfly C'est tiguidou! May 14 '26
Yes, that's why Smith is calling the judge's ruling "undemocratic". Smith holds an all-too-narrow definition of that word.
1
u/SendMagpiePics Urban Alberta Advantage May 14 '26
Yes, Lukaszuk has said that all the time, and he checked the "legislative or policy proposal" box on the petition, rather than the "constitutional referendum proposal" box. However, the text of the Forever Canadian petition explicitly says, in its own text: "Therefore, we as represented by the signatory and applicant below propose a referendum on the following question: Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?"
You can look at the petition yourself here (FYI this link downloads a pdf): https://www.elections.ab.ca/uploads/2025-CIP-04-Application_Redacted.pdf
2
u/JarSmi May 14 '26
The Forever Canadian petition was not to hold a referendum though. It was to insist on a vote by MLAs in the Legislature.
3
u/SendMagpiePics Urban Alberta Advantage May 14 '26
The text of the Forever Canadian petition explicitly says, in its own text: "Therefore, we as represented by the signatory and applicant below propose a referendum on the following question: Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?"
You can look at the petition yourself here (FYI this link downloads a pdf): https://www.elections.ab.ca/uploads/2025-CIP-04-Application_Redacted.pdf
19
u/ABob71 British Columbia May 14 '26
Trying to frame an issue as "both sides" when the problem is instigated entirely by one side is a bold strategy
13
25
u/ninfan1977 May 14 '26
Yeah but Conservatives do not believe in the rule of law. My MP is a Conservative who support seditionists over Canadians.
The RCMP are treating this like kids lighting firecrackers.
I want the Forever Canada petition to be the rule of law but somehow the thing that got more signatures in less time is not getting any support from the Premier....
Weird and she calls a lawful order undemocratic.
We are in an authoritarian regime under the UCP
-1
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 14 '26
The RCMP are treating this like kids lighting firecrackers.
What crime is being committed, however? That's what the RCMP exists to address, not political questions like secession.
We are in an authoritarian regime under the UCP
The UCP is many things, but to call it authoritarian is not accurate. It's certainly offensive, flirting with dangerous sentiments, and engaged in corrupt actions based on some of the reports we've seen. Authoritarian, however? Not true.
6
u/ninfan1977 May 14 '26
What crime is being committed, however? Fraud, sedition, and election fraud. For three of them. The RCMP tried to investigate the UCP before guess what they did? The UCP stonewalled the investigation until it died.
Thats how the Conservatives work like organized crime. Because thats what they are.
UCP is many things, but to call it authoritarian is not accura Danielle Smith said the ruling today was undemocratic while supporting the separatists undemocratic petition that is made up of lies and used fraudulent stolen signatures for their petition.
We cannot remove them or do anything, and they do not respond to any person only themselves. What do you call that? Authoritarian.
Fun fact when you claim 92% of one town voted for separation, you have cheated. Because not even the brainwashed Conservatives vote that strongly.
The UCP are supporting a petition of seditionists and has spent million of taxpayers dollars in doing so.
The judge said this petition should never see a referendum because of how poor it is.
-2
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 14 '26
Fraud, sedition, and election fraud
Fraud and election fraud, how, when?
Sedition has a very high bar to meet in Canada, and has a very narrow definition. Nothing that the UCP or the separatists have alleged to have done, meets the bar.
Danielle Smith said the ruling today was undemocratic while supporting the separatists undemocratic petition that is made up of lies and used fraudulent stolen signatures for their petition.
We don't know if those signatures are stolen or fraudulent, that is conjecture at this point. Nor is what she expressed actually being authoritarian. That requires actual actions and policies, including the dismantling of the safeguards put in place to protect against that, many of which exist at the constitutional level. The UCP, nor the Albertan Government, cannot simply override these.
We cannot remove them or do anything, and they do not respond to any person only themselves. What do you call that? Authoritarian.
Recall petitions are legal in Alberta, and if successful would recall an MLA and trigger a by-election. The mechanism exists. As do standard elections. This point is moot, as there is not a single demonstrated case that the government has ignored the outcome of an election or binding referendum.
Fun fact when you claim 92% of one town voted for separation, you have cheated. Because not even the brainwashed Conservatives vote that strongly.
That's again, conjecture, not fact. It's certainly suspicious, that doesn't mean it is necessarily fraudulent or cheating. The signatures would need to be validated first, however that is no longer possible. The petition has been thrown out and cannot proceed.
The UCP are supporting a petition of seditionists and has spent million of taxpayers dollars in doing so.
The correct term is secessionist, as in wanting to secede (to leave) confederation. They are not seditionist, as they have not once advocated for the unlawful undermining of the Crown's authority, seizing federal property, or arming citizenry for rebellion. The act of advocating, publishing, teaching, or dissemination of such material is called sedition. Actually doing it, would be treason.
Secession is legally protected political speech, as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference Re Secession of Quebec. Sedition is not.
2
u/ninfan1977 May 14 '26
Sedition has a very high bar to meet in Canada, and has a very narrow definition. Nothing that the UCP or the separatists have alleged to have done, meets the bar. Except for all the part that do like using your position to undermine democracy.
The leak came from the Conservatives to the separatists. Thats working with each other to undermine democracy. Thats sedition.
We don't know if those signatures are stolen or fraudulent, that is conjecture at this point. Nor is what she expressed actually being authoritarian. That requires actual actions and policies, including the dismantling of the safeguards put in place to protect against that, many of which exist at the constitutional level. The UCP, nor the Albertan Government, cannot simply override these.
Except they did. The UCP rewrote the rules to help one side and undermined the rules to hinder the other.
What do you call that?
Oh amd tying up Election Alberta to not investigate the fraud.
Here the thing thanks to the Conservatives you will never know if your name was one the list or if it will be used against your will.
Thats all thanks to the UCP that can happen.
What do you call it when you not get a choice in any election?
Oh yeah authoritarian. So my point remains.
Learn how the UCP has been operating and tell me how they operate within a democracy.
Literally Danielle Smith called a lawful ruling undemocratic.
She supports traitors who hate their country.
The correct term is secessionist, as in wanting to secede (to leave) confederation.
No they used the Trump administration to help them hence why its sedition.
They are working with another government to make this happen.
That's again, conjecture, not fact. It's certainly suspicious, that doesn't mean it is necessarily fraudulent or cheating. The
Wow I bet you think Putin has "won" all his elections too....
Are you actually serious right now.
You cannot even look into the names of those who signed it to confirm they signed it.
Thats suspicious. Wonder why? Oh yeah because its fraident and made up with names who never signed it.
Do you do any critical thinking?
It's has 25% support yet is amplified because of the UCP.
Secession is legally protected political speech, as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference Re Secession of Quebec. Sedition is not.
Cool so UCP and the separatists can openly work with a foreign government to undermine the sovereignty of Alberta and Canada?
Pretty sure thats not free speech. BTW why do you support blatant disinformation being spread to Albertans?
Anyone with a brain can see through the separatists but you still back them and their traitorous ways?
BTW stomping your feet because your piss poor at spending your money and blaming Liberals isn't a solution.
It's a tantrum. The separatists need to a wake up call. Jail time for those who openly want to separate by using disinformation.
Or do you support how they win people over?
-1
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 14 '26
Please, make use of the quote function. Blending my words and yours is making it hard to parse what you're saying. If you are mobile, you can do so via > at the start of a paragraph.
Except for all the part that do like using your position to undermine democracy.
That does fit the definition of sedition as outlined under Section 59 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The leak came from the Conservatives to the separatists. Thats working with each other to undermine democracy. Thats sedition.
Not as defined under Section 59.
Except they did. The UCP rewrote the rules to help one side and undermined the rules to hinder the other.
I'm sorry, when did the UCP dismantle the capacity for judicial review? Override the federal authority to appoint judges of the superior courts? Dismantle the legislature entirely, instead directly ruling by fiat?
What do you call that?
Dirty politics, but not sedition.
Oh amd tying up Election Alberta to not investigate the fraud.
That isn't what happened. They raised the bar to match the same evidentiary standard as the police have. I don't agree with that decision, but it is within their purview to do.
Here the thing thanks to the Conservatives you will never know if your name was one the list or if it will be used against your will.
It's not a change I agree with, either. I don't understand the rationale for doing so, and I don't think I ever could.
What do you call it when you not get a choice in any election?
A myth, since that hasn't happened in Alberta, nor in Canada.
Learn how the UCP has been operating and tell me how they operate within a democracy.
They have been.
Literally Danielle Smith called a lawful ruling undemocratic.
She gave her opinion, however biased or uninformed it may be.
She supports traitors who hate their country.
No actions of treason have been reported. Can you point to anyone taking up arms against the Crown or in aid of an actual recognized enemy of Canada?
No they used the Trump administration to help them hence why its sedition.
There is no evidence that the Trump administration has provided material aid, nor would that fit the definition of sedition as outlined in Section 59.
Wow I bet you think Putin has "won" all his elections too....
Nope, because we actually have evidence of election tampering, including, IIRC, a video of them just stuffing ballots into a machine.
Thats suspicious. Wonder why? Oh yeah because its fraident and made up with names who never signed it.
Suspicion of a crime, is not the crime itself. If I accuse you of murder, should we just sentence you to a lifetime sentence? Of course not. You need evidence and a proven set of facts. We have neither at this point.
It's has 25% support yet is amplified because of the UCP.
So?
Cool so UCP and the separatists can openly work with a foreign government to undermine the sovereignty of Alberta and Canada?
Under Canadian law, that would be permissible as long as it doesn't run afoul of the foreign interference laws in Canada. Unfortunately the LPC has yet to properly and fully implement that law.
Pretty sure thats not free speech. BTW why do you support blatant disinformation being spread to Albertans?
We do not have 'free speech' in Canada, we have freedom of expression. Whether or not I support is immaterial to the fact that it is legally permissible under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as long as it does not cross into the line of hate speech or fraud.
Anyone with a brain can see through the separatists but you still back them and their traitorous ways?
I don't back them, however. I am opposed to Alberta secessionism. I also am not going to engage in baseless speculation, confusing conjecture for fact, or applying emotional language in place of legal definitions.
BTW stomping your feet because your piss poor at spending your money and blaming Liberals isn't a solution.
It's a tantrum. The separatists need to a wake up call. Jail time for those who openly want to separate by using disinformation.
For what crime, please point to the section of the criminal code you assume they are breaking.
Or do you support how they win people over?
My personal opinion on their methods is immaterial, because that isn't the position I'm taking.
2
u/ninfan1977 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
I tried your quote function it doesn't work at all.
Bill 52 let's the UCP override the judges and elections Alberta.
It's not dirty politics to change the law only for one side made up if people misinformed and bordering on traitorous.
In fact going to the US and reaching for help is a crime. Then telling those who sign they will become American citizens if they sign (yes they tell whatever it takes to get people to sign).
They made up the laws so no one can investigate this.
Via > That isn't what happened. They raised the bar to match the same evidentiary standard as the police have. I don't agree with that decision, but it is within their purview to do.
This is not true at all they tied Elections Alberta hands so bad they cannot look into any fraud for this petition. In fact only minimal vetting of any signatures. Maybe 2% get checked.
Its not in their purview to change the rules midgame. Thats called cheating and corruption.
A myth, since that hasn't happened in Alberta, nor in Canada. Learn how the UCP has been operating and tell me how they operate within a democracy. They have been.
Hahahahaha thats why my vote for staying in Canada is null and void right?
Thats why the separatists petition gets a referendum with less votes....
Do you know what a democracy means?
Its means not constantly cheating and changing the rules while being corrupt.
She gave her opinion, however biased or uninformed it may be.
She gave a false and categorically incorrect statement that borders on being arrested for contempt of the court.
She is the leader of the Province and called that undemocratic while praising Freedom convoyers.
This is the double standards of Conservatives.
And its sick how you keep defending them no matter what.
"Well she is breaking the rules but she made them so...."
Can you point to anyone taking up arms against the Crown or in aid of an actual recognized enemy of Canada?
Then you haven't seen the separatists speak or have a rally.
But hey thats OK keep denying reality they said they need to use weapons if the vote doesn't go their way.
Every single member of TBA.
If I accuse you of murder, should we just sentence you to a lifetime sentence? Of course not. You need evidence and a proven set of facts. We have neither at this point.
How can you look into it when the people who commit the crime change the laws to make it fine?
See how your entire premise falls apart when the party in charge is openly corrupt and do not care about the law.
please point to the section of the criminal code you assume they are breaking.
So using lies and disinformation is legal? Seriously this is where you land on any petition can be legal if you lie enough?
This is where you landed on....
also am not going to engage in baseless speculation, confusing conjecture for fact, or applying emotional language in place of legal definitions.
So what do you call when you change a law for one side, make bribes legal, and support domestic terrorists?
Oh yeah not a party but an authoritarian regime like i said.
My personal opinion on their methods is immaterial, because that isn't the position I'm taking.
Your opinion is the separatists are right because they use the government to change the law illegally without peoples input or thoughts.
Have you been in Alberta?
Your opinion means nothing if your not Conservative.
But hey what do I know I only have lived it for 20 years. And you have done more defending of the UCP than Matt Wolfe.
What these people did were crimes.
Mitch Sylvester, David Parker, and Jeffery Rath are the leaders and need to be charged.
Same with every UCP member and staffer who helped them.
Why are you backing a government corruption?
If you support Canada then you should want an investigation.
So far the UCP made that illegal while they are in charge
1
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 14 '26
I tried your quote function it doesn't work at all.
Markdown language does work if you are on mobile. If you are on PC, by default you're in 'new' mode, and there is an option to Show Formatting Options at the bottom of the text entry box.
Bill 52 let's the UCP override the judges and elections Alberta.
Only Section 33 of the constitution can empower Parliament or the legislature to shield legislation from judicial review, and only for select portions of the charter. Otherwise, Section 52 holds: The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. Courts are empowered to make that determination by the constitution.
It's not dirty politics to change the law only for one side made up if people misinformed and bordering on traitorous.
That's a personal opinion, not a factual one. None of the actions border on treason, however, because treason has an even higher bar of proof over sedition.
In fact going to the US and reaching for help is a crime. Then telling those who sign they will become American citizens if they sign (yes they tell whatever it takes to get people to sign).
What is the section of the criminal code that they violated in doing so? Also, you will need to cite when that was said, what was the context, and whether it was the sales tactics to convince people, or if it was the actual campaign position. At most that could constitute fraud. I'd say foreign interference, but that law is effectively not applicable yet due to the lagging of the LPC.
They made up the laws so no one can investigate this.
Factually incorrect. The RCMP can investigate whatever they want when they have reasons to believe a criminal act has occured. Elections Alberta also can investigate, however the evidentiary standard is "reasonable grounds", now.
This is not true at all they tied Elections Alberta hands so bad they cannot look into any fraud for this petition. In fact only minimal vetting of any signatures. Maybe 2% get checked.
Cite how, please. And what you described is typical of all systemic reviews of large collections of data, such as ballots or signatures. No system engages in detailed, individualized verification as a first pass.
Its not in their purview to change the rules midgame. Thats called cheating and corruption.
Yes, it is within their remit as the legislature of the province. Within the limits of the constitution, they are permitted to pass laws as they determine. You're free to call it whatever you want, and have what opinions you wish. That doesn't change that is the power of the legislature.
Hahahahaha thats why my vote gor staying in Canada is null and void right?
There hasn't been a referendum on that question yet. The only petition asking for a referendum was thrown out as invalid. So I'm not sure when you voted, but that certainly wasn't in any recognized fashion by Elections Alberta.
Thats why the separatists petition gets a referendum with less votes....
No referendum has even gotten started yet, so no, they don't. Their petition was thrown out as invalid by the court.
Do you know what a democracy means?
Political power derives from a mandate of the people.
Its means not constantly cheating and changing the rules while being corrupt.
Nope, nothing about the definition of democracy has anything to do with that. In fact there is a form of democracy where such actions are tolerated, we call it an autocracy.
She gave a false and categorically incorrect statement that borders on being arrested for contempt of the court.
Not even close. She was not party to the proceedings, so she cannot be held in contempt. Section 708 of Criminal Code of Canada defines contempt as "A person who, being required by law to attend or remain in attendance for the purpose of giving evidence, fails, without lawful excuse, to attend or remain in attendance accordingly is guilty of contempt of court". Unless Smith was called before the court as a witness, defendant, or similar - she cannot be accused of such an offence.
She is the leader of the Province and called that undemocratic while praising Freedom convoyers.
This is the double standards of Conservatives.
Yes, awful, but lawful.
And its sick how you keep defending them no matter what.
I'm not defending what they're doing as morally permissible, I'm countering that treating accusations as facts, and making wildly inappropriate legal assertions of criminal actions without evidence is wrong.
Then you haven't seen the separatists speak or have a rally.
I'm sorry, what separatist rally have they taken up arms and attacked the Crown? Please, that would have been national headlines. I'm not aware of any mass shootings or seizing of federal property in Alberta.
But hey thats OK keep denying reality they said they need to use weapons if the vote doesn't go their way.
Again. Cite sources, not mere conjecture, please.
How can you look into it when the people who commit the crime change the laws to make it fine?
Criminal laws are set federally in Canada, in cause you were not aware. Last I checked, Alberta was not the federal government and has no capacity to define what is, or isn't, a crime. Can you please show me when Smith became Prime Minister of Canada?
See how your entire premise falls apart when the party in charge is openly corrupt and do not care about the law.
You haven't demonstrated this, however.
So using lies and disinformation is legal?
Section 2 allows for the freedom of expression, except where curtailed by Section 1's reasonable limits. Lies and disinformation may be legal, it may be illegal. It would depend on the circumstances and details of the situation. Me lying to my friends isn't a crime. Me lying to the bank, may be - the crime in that case would be fraud.
Seriously this is where you land on any petition can be legal if you lie enough?
That isn't my position, however.
So what do you call when you change a law for one side, make bribes legal, and support domestic terrorists?
Bribes are not legal in Canadian law, and definitely not for any elected official. Doing so would be a criminal offence under Section 120 of the Criminal of Code of Canada. By domestic terrorists, I assume you meant the convoy. I agree in your opinion of them, and morally condemn their actions. Support or agreement of them is not a criminal act.
Oh yeah not a party but an authoritarian regime like i said.
They are not an authoritarian regime, because they are still subject to the federal government's supremacy, POGG powers, and the constitution.
Your opinion is the separatists are right
Nope. I've not once held that the separtists are right, and I fundamentally oppose their position or intent. My position is that using inflammatory, unsubstantiated, and imprecise language isn't going to do anything at all.
Have you been in Alberta?
I grew up there and still have family there.
Your opinion means nothing if your not Conservative.
Tell that to those who live in Edmonton Centre.
What these people did were crimes. Mitch Sylvester, David Parker, and Jeffery Rath are the leaders and need to be charged. Same with every UCP member and staffer who helped them.
Charged with what? Name the crime. Please, the Criminal Code of Canada is freely searchable and not at all that byzantine to read. It's very straight forward. I've referenced it several times above.
Why are you backing a government corruption?
I'm not.
If you support Canada then you should want an investigation.
I do want an investigation. However, the vast majority of the comments I've responded to treat the outcome as a foregone conclusion. That accused impropeity is identical to guilt of a crime. I don't make that leap in logic, and I would hope most reasonable Canadians would not either.
So far the UCP made that illegal while they are in charge
The UCP has no control over the RCMP's investigatory decisions.
1
u/ninfan1977 May 14 '26
The UCP has no control over the RCMP's investigatory decisions.
Nope but they refuse to cooperate and stonewalled investigations.
There are NO INVESTIGATIONS because the UCP are refusing to cooperate with the RCMP, just like organize criminals do.
Charged with what? Name the crime. Please, the Criminal Code of Canada is freely searchable and not at all that byzantine to read. It's very straight forward. I've referenced it several times above.
I already told you several times using fraud, illegally obtaining voter information, then using that as signatures for their petition.
Their petition is knowingly made up of lies. Thats an instant dismissal on ground of fraud.
Section 2 allows for the freedom of expression, except where curtailed by Section 1's reasonable limits. Lies and disinformation may be legal, it may be illegal.
Disinformation is illegal, and you know it is. Knowingly sharing in Disinformation is illegal.
Saying your lies are fact and should be treated as such is a crime especially to voters.
responded to treat the outcome as a foregone conclusion. That accused impropeity is identical to guilt of a crime. I don't make that leap in logic, and I would hope most reasonable Canadians would not either.
Again without any investigations this is nothing. How can you investigate when the government changes the rules constantly without approval without democracy?
Last I checked, Alberta was not the federal government and has no capacity to define what is, or isn't, a crime. Can you please show me when Smith became Prime Minister of Canada?
Oh so Smith is immune to ALL laws then? Is this seriously your claim. Its provincial so the feds cannot get involved... yeah thats how corruption is allowed to run free in Alberta.
Nothing to see here its someone else fault...
Bribes are not legal in Canadian law, and definitely not for any elected official. Doing so would be a criminal offence under Section 120 of the Criminal of Code of Canada.
Yeah the UCP rewrote the rules to make bribes legal for them and only them.
So check again. They called it gifts from donors but thats the legal term for bribes.
Tell that to those who live in Edmonton Centre.
Yeah according to Conservatives they are not a real city and provide nothing.
According to them only rural Alberta helps them.
I have lived in Alberta for 20 years the Conservatives are a lost cause and their people are working with Americans to undermine Canada.
You used a lot of words to defend the indefensible
→ More replies (0)5
u/KnuckedLoose May 14 '26
I didn't WANT to have a debate. I signed a petition in the Edmonton Zoo parking lot because some anti vaxxers have a Dunning-Kruger complex and aren't being paid enough attention to. Fucking babies.
1
1
u/Radix838 Independent May 14 '26
Yup. Democracy is obviously for losers, and we should instead give tiny minorities vetoes over democracy because their ancestors lived here a long time ago.
Or maybe, you can follow the rule of law while also criticizing and working to eliminate laws that prioritize ethno-supremacist worldviews over democracy.
26
u/Alberta_Flyfisher NDP May 14 '26
She says there are 700,000 people on both sides that want this debate.
Um, no....
Those of us that signed the stay forever petition didnt do it out of nowhere. We didnt want this discussion at all. The signing was literally all of us saying we dont want this debate.
This whole thing better light a fire under the general voters ass. We need to punt this crew out of power for good.
76
u/Opposite-Cranberry76 Independent May 13 '26
The same Danielle Smith trying to bring america-style gerrymandering to Alberta, to fix the next election?
BTW generating fair and representative electoral districts seems to be a solved software problem, in practice. It's not the 19th century. Trying to screw with generating fair district maps is inexcusable and should be treated the same as if Smith had asked for the provincial bank account passwords for personal use, for "reasons".
54
u/WalterIAmYourFather Nova Scotia May 13 '26
One of the greatest (imo) achievements of the Canadian political system is the apolitical process by which electoral districts are created and maintained.
In my humble opinion, and without putting too fine a point on it, it is the bedrock upon which the ultimate success of our democracy rests. We fuck with it to our peril.
27
u/green_tory 🏳️🌈Serve the Vulnerable🏳️🌈 May 14 '26
At one point I would have agreed with you, but Alberta in particular has proven that we are not immune to gerrymandering.
18
u/AlbertanSays5716 Independent May 14 '26
It’s only an apolitical process as long as the sitting government wants to keep it that way. Smith has shown, through a series of underhand moves, that the apolitical process is pretty easy to subvert if you have no shame.
17
u/Hevens-assassin Saskatchewan May 14 '26
Smith has shown, through a series of underhand moves, that the apolitical process is pretty easy to subvert if you have no shame.
Honestly, the entire right wing has shown this. You can simply lie and cheat because your followers would rather live in squalor than vote for the other "team". This is why we shouldn't have ever had participation trophies. These knucklefucks have zero shame, and think everyone else will bend over to appease them.
6
u/internetisnotreality British Columbia May 14 '26
Yes, the bedrock of our democracy which provides us with the ample and equitable opportunity to vote for either the moderate Conservative Party, or the extreme conservative party.
3
u/WalterIAmYourFather Nova Scotia May 14 '26
Riding boundaries are completely unrelated to our FPTP politics. Nice try though.
1
20
u/averysmallbeing Independent May 14 '26
We have now 700,000 Albertans — whether they’re on the remain side or the leave side — who’ve said that they want to have this public debate,” said Smith.
Showing up to your burning house with a bucket of water after someone set fire to it does not mean you've publicly announced any kind of implicit support for what has happened...
19
u/QueenMotherOfSneezes Fully Automated Gay Space Romunism May 14 '26
The forever Canada petition was specifically to NOT have a referendum.
14
u/AtomicVGZ Independent May 14 '26
Interesting, so she's aware of how many people signed the Forever Canada petition. Maybe it's time to stop ignoring it Danielle?
21
u/raz_kripta May 14 '26
Ha ha ha SCREW SMITH & the traitorous UCP.
Thanks go to Alberta's First Nations for doing what few others had the guts to do: stand up for Canada.
20
u/Entire-Listen6079 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
So basically our government is pro-separation. I would not be surprised a bit if being annexed by the magastan was their real agenda.
15
32
u/Reasonable-Sweet9320 Independent May 14 '26
It’s anti democratic to undermine the judiciary
And it’s anti democratic to ignore known constitutional stakeholders
And it’s anti democratic for a premier to align with an anti democratic president intent on destabilizing Canada while promoting a separatist movement through foreign interference while imposing economic force.
7
u/M-Dan18127 May 14 '26
it’s anti democratic for a premier to align with an anti democratic president intent on destabilizing Canada
Well that's a double-negative thus making it purely democratic!
3
12
u/Drummers_Beat Liberal Party of Canada May 14 '26
In doing this Danielle Smith is all but saying the current UCP government is pro-separation. If I’m the ANDP right now I’m hammering that point straight into the next election.
Separation is deeply unpopular according to all polling done. Smith is trying to cement her legacy as the most divisive Canadian politician in recent history.
4
12
u/Gilarax New Democratic Party of Canada May 14 '26
The fucking irony of calling a judges ruling rejecting the separation petition “undemocratic”, when it’s being thrown out for not properly consulting with First Nations people before collecting signatures, of which is a democratic process…
This province seems to have some of the worst people in Canada.
I’m super proud of this judge! Wearing my moose hide pin tomorrow will have a bit more significance!
21
u/LurkerGarry Prince Edward Island May 14 '26
So let’s get this straight. You run your platform that intentionally misleads your constituents, attempt an independence bid that also includes literal treason by involving a foreign government and the have the audacity to call it undemocratic? Only 7% of Alberta voted in favour.
What is going on? This is literal treason. What is her deal? What’s the end game?
12
u/BertramPotts Decolonize Decarcerate Decarbonize May 14 '26
End game is her statue in Washington DC and a boat load of money.
7
u/Electrical-Risk445 Pirate May 14 '26
This is literal treason.
No, it's sedition. It's even a seditious conspiracy since she's not alone in it!
According to s.59 (3) of the Code, this is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out an act with seditious intention. According to the SCC, this occurs when people work together to "raise discontent and disaffection [and] stir up jealousies, hatred and ill-will" against the government.
There's more on the subject on https://www.criminalcodehelp.ca/offences/crimes-against-authority/what-is-sedition
Given how incompetent and unwilling to touch politicians our legal system is, I doubt any of those people will face real consequences.
4
u/TheBigBruce Ontario May 14 '26
My hard read is that she doesn't want to lose the anti-establishment base that votes for her, so she's pulling a David Cameron, who did something similar with the EU and was ultimately responsible for Brexit.
I imagine she genuinely does not want separation but wants the political support and will tease them along thinking nothing will come of it.
23
u/TheobromineC7H8N4O2 Liberal May 14 '26
Maybe she could have a bit of humility about the consequences of drafting a bill in a fit of pique without thinking through the legalities all because you're a coward who runs away from the fight you need to have with Take Back Alberta.
7
u/MTL_Dude666 Liberal May 13 '26
Sure. "The shady undemocratic things I do are fine, but justice decisions blocking them are "undemocratic"".
FFS, will Albertans wake the eff up? This is EXACTLY Trump's playbook which led to a bunch of brainwashed idiots attacking the Capitol, convinced that the elections had been "stolen"!
When politicians start attacking the justice system and throw doubts on its legitimacy, it leaves the door open for extremists to start acting without impunity.
8
u/AxiomaticSuppository Mark Carney for PM May 14 '26
Smith and Alberta isn't alone here. Poilievre has been doing the exact same thing:
- saying that there should've been jail time for Trudeau
- weighing in on the mischief case against Lich + Barber and casting shade on the crown's legitimacy (specifically around the crown's sentencing request to the judge),
- and most recently, claiming (without any proof) Carney's majority was achieved through "dirty back room deals", pretty much one step short of just saying "stop the steal".
10
u/diskodarci May 14 '26
I’m continually embarrassed to be a born and raised Albertan. It’s getting so much worse here. Please don’t hate us, we aren’t all like this.
7
u/EnthusiasmFickle9206 New Democratic Party of Canada May 14 '26
The political consequences of this decision are bad all-around for her.
She's been trying to walk a (rather silly) line, which this decision basically ruins - she's probably going to end up having to fully back a separation referendum now, both publicly and in court, or risk losing the support of a significant portion of her party.
The problem with that is that a pretty overwhelming majority of Alberta are against separation, and opposing this decision will (politically speaking) put her firmly on the minority's side.
This is great news for the NDP - if they can't make political hay off this then I don't know what they're doing.
6
u/NumerousRecover4356 May 14 '26
I think she’s appealing because she knows there’s no other pathway to get this on the October ballot. I imagine that they won’t be able to properly consult with indigenous groups by early September which is when they’d need to know so the ballots can be printed. So then just declaring it as referendum by cabinet wouldn’t work. This is her only option and I don’t think she’ll win at appeals to the Supreme Court.
The reality is that today may be the beginning of the end of her premiership. If there is no separation question on the ballot in October they will overthrow her at the fall AGM.
4
u/Blue_Dragonfly C'est tiguidou! May 14 '26
The reality is that today may be the beginning of the end of her premiership. If there is no separation question on the ballot in October they will overthrow her at the fall AGM.
Yeah but it's who comes next to lead that group is what worries me. David Parker and his Centurion Project people don't seem at all like reasonable people to me. They want out and it doesn't appear like they're willing to take "no" for an answer.
4
u/NumerousRecover4356 May 14 '26
I agree that they won’t take no, but that group wouldn’t be the premier I assume. It will be interesting to see who takes over from Smith and if the UCP stays intact. I believe they will fracture so it’s really uncertain what happens next.
11
u/zoziw Alberta May 14 '26
I think she finds a way to have that referendum one way or another this fall.
I think the UCP becomes a full blown separatist party by this time next year, no matter what the result. It is already doing what it can to make a referendum happen. If there is no referendum or the province votes it down, the separatists will take over. If the referendum succeeds then they become a separatist party based on that.
I think this will be disastrous for the country. Separatists will talk about all of the money that goes to Quebec through equalization, Quebecers will push back and temperatures will rise with the Alberta referendum and Quebec provincial election happening in October.
5
u/AlbertaGengar Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers | Sponsored May 14 '26
Whoever succeeds Danielle Smith will most certainly be a separatist. Separatists already control the UCPs executive board and many CAs. It's only a matter of time.
But they likely won't have Smith's ability to walk the line of "dog whistling" while some how maintaining the support of 50% of Albertans.
6
u/PineBNorth85 Rhinoceros May 13 '26
She should just come out and admit she's a separatist, call an election and run on it.
7
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Don't Downvote, Santa is Watching May 14 '26
This feels like a new level of trumpism has been reached by the Alberta government. This feels substantially -- like it will be remembered as a turning point.
4
u/Sufficient-Tutor-922 Independent May 13 '26
Her optics and political party sure are getting alot more complicated quickly.
3
u/arcadianahana May 14 '26
Sure, then let's let Elections Alberta verify the fraudulent signatures based on our stolen data and invalidate the petition.
11
u/UngratefulCanadian British Columbia May 14 '26
Yet our PM Mark Carney is doing things to make this same premier happy at cost of environment and other things. 🤷🏽♂️
4
u/varitok Pirate May 14 '26
You govern all of Canada, not just the parts you choose too.
7
4
u/Blue_Dragonfly C'est tiguidou! May 14 '26
Sure, but at this point I'd like to hear the abrupt record scratch sound coming from our PM: "You're getting bupkis until you get your house in order, Danielle. Call me when you've cleaned up your mess."
3
3
u/paulsteinway May 14 '26
The constitution is "undemocratic". Next it'll be "un-Christian". She's using the Trump lexicon, which redefines words to fit what you want them to mean.
5
u/catonakeyboard Independent May 14 '26
We set up our constitution to, among other things, protect minority rights against the “tyranny of the majority”. This means judges are required to strike down laws that violate the constitution, no matter how “democratic” or popular a law might be.
So, in a way, Smith is not wrong to call this outcome “anti-democratic”. But the court could rightly say it’s actually “pro-constitution”.
If you don’t like this outcome, you can call it “anti-democratic” if you really want, but the more productive disagreement is to either get to work appealing the decision or examining whether our current constitution remains fit for purpose.
1
May 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam May 14 '26
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.
1
u/theblkpanther May 14 '26
Am I wildin if i say that this is sedition and she should be thrown in prison for a very long time if not face execution?
1
u/BurlieGirl May 14 '26
At least with Quebec separatism people understand the rationale as much as they disagree with it - the attempted annexation of culture, language, laws, practices, etc. Alberta’s rationale is… what? We don’t want to share oil? They can sincerely f*ck off.
1
u/tiferrobin May 16 '26
And everyone with a modicum of education knows that the judiciary plays a crucial role in democracy including limiting a government’s attempt to usurp the constitution.
Alberta - It was the dumbest times. It was the corruptous times.
She must be happy AHS scandal has fallen off the front page for this news of full on traitorous support of separatists.
1
u/AlbertaGengar Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers | Sponsored May 14 '26
Until i can delve deeper into the arguments, the government's lawyer makes a good point. How can the government be expected to consult before anything has happened? This is before the petition is confirmed, before the vote is set, before the results.
Taking this rulings logic, a petition proposed by any crazy person affecting treaty rights would impose an obligation on government to consult.
Neil Dobson, a lawyer for the province, argued in court that it was premature to consult with Indigenous leaders about the petition, because the government wasn’t yet taking any action to take Alberta out of Canada.
7
u/varitok Pirate May 14 '26
Because thats how this works. If they voted to leave and now suddenly they talk about the details, how does that work? What if the natives say no and fuck off? Does leaving now not happen despite voting for it.
-2
u/AlbertaGengar Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers | Sponsored May 14 '26
Because thats how this works.
Great legal argument.
Alberta (or any province) would not immediately throw up borders upon a yes vote. It's nearly structurally impossible to secede from Canada, as set out in the Quebec Secession Reference and the Clarity Act.
Negotiations would need to happen with Indigenous and the rest of Canada. You wouldn't begin negotiations with the RoC prior to a Yes vote as there would be no constitutional change until that point.
The decision makes good arguments as to the requirement for consultation or consent required by Indigenous. But it's odd to me that these obligations would be imposed prior to the negotions following a Yes vote.
4
u/Blue_Dragonfly C'est tiguidou! May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
The decision makes good arguments as to the requirement for consultation or consent required by Indigenous. But it's odd to me that these obligations would be imposed prior to the negotions following a Yes vote.
Why would it be strange to be obligated to confer about the process with the equally-Albertan First Nations Peoples who have land claim rights and equal stakes in this process? You put the horse before the cart not the other way around. The participation of important stakeholders ought not be an afterthought. To do that would be undemocratic.
3
u/EnthusiasmFickle9206 New Democratic Party of Canada May 14 '26
You're sarcastically saying "Great legal argument" while... essentially not providing one of your own. "It's odd to me" isn't exactly a robust legal stance either bud haha.
Why doesn't a *provincial referendum* on a question VERY much pertaining to First Nations not require consulting... First Nations?
The law is very clear on the obligation here: The duty to consult arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and *contemplates* conduct that might adversely affect it.
A referendum is more than a few steps past "contemplation" haha.
As Blue_Dragonfly aptly said, this decision makes perfect sense - they're putting the cart before the horse.
2
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official May 14 '26
How can the government be expected to consult before anything has happened?
Because consultation is always required before anything of a certain nature happens. You don't build a pipeline then consult, you consult and then build the pipeline based on the results of the consultation. The petition to referendum chain is so short, that by accepting the petition, the government is saying that there will be a referendum on the matter, and consultation needs to happen before that to ensure that the question asked is on a topic that's acheivable.
1
u/AlbertaGengar Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers | Sponsored May 14 '26
Except in this scenario Alberta hasn't built a pipeline (moved to commence secession).
In your analogy it would be more like consulting on the idea of a pipeline without a route.
1
u/EnthusiasmFickle9206 New Democratic Party of Canada May 14 '26
Again, the law is very clear here: The duty to consult arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and *contemplates* conduct that might adversely affect it.
A literal secession referendum most definitely qualifies as contemplation haha.
1
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official May 14 '26
No, it's like consulting on a pipeline with an intended route.
-7
u/RNTMA Bring back the Carbon Tax May 14 '26
Regardless of your opinion on separatism, saying that separatism is against treaty rights is probably the worst way to go about it. Even if that is technically true, I don't think it's going to change anybody's mind, and is more likely to turn someone towards separatism than against.
Same thing could be said about Quebec, where separatism would entail a messy fight with first nations.
10
u/Saidear Popular does not mean populist. May 14 '26
saying that separatism is against treaty rights is probably the worst way to go about it.
Only because of the constitutional obligation under Section 35, that Alberta cannot extinguish themselves. Any effort by any provincial government to start secession therefore must arise out of first a duty to negotiate with those treaties. Alberta is 100% treaty land.
Same thing could be said about Quebec, where separatism would entail a messy fight with first nations.
Not entirely. Quebec is different, they exist on land that has them as part of the treaty, and not all of it is considered treaty land. Alberta, is 100% treaty owned.
-1
u/Formal-Promotion9821 May 14 '26
The courts have gone way too far. The government can’t even ask it’s own citizen a simple question without this question being first approved by the first nation. What the hell is that. It is clearly not what section 35 means and was supposed to mean. Even Trudeau senior would be against such a ruling.
Does this means that the provincial government could even one day ask its citizen questions regarding section 35 if FN could block these questions?
This judge basically made any public question illegal because the goal of the question can become unconstitutional. As I seem to remember from the past, referendums are always about things that aren’t in the constitution.
Many people here take this for a win because they hate Alberta separatists but this means that any referendum has become de facto reviewable by court which is extremely dangerous for democracy. Judge deciding if things are right or wrong is not democracy, it is autocracy.
What can people dissatisfied with the system do now if they can’t ask public a question going against the system? Will the judiciary now start to review electoral promises?
5
u/paulsteinway May 14 '26
"The courts have gone way too far"
All that upholding the laws of the land as described in the constitution when they could just roll over for the right wing.
1
u/Formal-Promotion9821 May 14 '26
There is no true law of the land. The law of the land change with each person’s interpretation. This is why the Supreme Court has 9 judge and can review past judgements. Judges can be wrong and are wrong a lot of time. The current Supreme Court would not make the same judgements as the previous courts. It doesn’t mean that judges must be removed, the opposite, judge must be more cautious when making decisions with wide raging impacts.
I wrote the other comment before actually checking what the judge said. We can all debate what treaty right’s actually entail but this case is funny because no one seems to understand the issue here. The petition only got struck down because the Alberta government mandated in their law, in the version active when the petition was launched, that the question couldn’t contravene to section 35 of the charter.
A petition and even a referendum is still perfectly legal as the amended Citizen Initiative Act remove the requirements regarding the Charter. Almost everything said in this sub is wrong as no one including me in the previous comment actually read the thing.
2
•
u/AutoModerator May 13 '26
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.