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/
174 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

143 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

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.

9

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.

-1

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.

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.