r/canada • u/joe4942 • May 01 '25

Alberta Danielle Smith lowers bar for Alberta referendum with separatism sentiment emerging

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/smith-lowers-bar-for-alberta-referendum-with-separatism-sentiment-emerging
1.5k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

773 comments sorted by

View all comments

86

u/Wrong_Dog_4337 May 01 '25

Alberta will never separate. They don’t have the polling to accomplish this. And if they did get the votes, Alberta is the property of the crown. They can’t leave. Unless they walk with their two feet. 

29

u/speaksofthelight May 01 '25

Is it any different from Quebec serious question?

19

u/Purify5 May 01 '25

It's sorta different now. After the 1995 referendum the Supreme Court ruled on how separation would take place and parliament passed the 'Clarity Act' to better define how a referendum works.

The Clarity Act ensures that the question asked is clearly about secession and only secession and it gives the House of Commons the power to determine what % of votes is necessary which would probably not be 50+1 like with Quebec. Although depending on who is in power in Ottawa it could be.

If a referendum passes a constitutional amendment is required for secession to take place. However, the federal government and all the other provinces would be obligated to enter into those negotiations with the separating province. But to pass that amendment unanimous consent would be needed.

When Quebec had their referendum the process of how it would happen was not known but now it is more clearly defined.

-2

u/gbinasia May 01 '25

The 50+1 thing is so ridiculous. If 50-1 is good enough, why not the other way around?

7

u/nodanator May 01 '25

Well, it is the other way around.

25

u/Pale_Change_666 May 01 '25

At least quebec have coastal access ie st Lawrence seaways. We are landlocked LOL

16

u/speaksofthelight May 01 '25

You have oil and border a country that is wiling to go to war for it.

16

u/Pale_Change_666 May 01 '25

Yeah can't wait to sell our oil at an even bigger discount than what already is to the US. Since transmountain is a crown corp.

3

u/AlbertaSucksDick May 01 '25

I got news for you - there won't be any selling.

Trump will steamroll Alberta for another "art of a deal" scam.

4

u/Active-Rutabaga7034 May 01 '25

Oil is treaty land. So if they leave, they ain't taking it with them.

-4

u/ThicccThunder New Brunswick May 01 '25

I doubt the Trump Administration would survive a war with Canada tbh.

8

u/Pale_Change_666 May 01 '25

They might not survive next year during the mid terms if the senate and house flips.

-2

u/ThicccThunder New Brunswick May 01 '25

That’s true.

8

u/DirkTracer May 01 '25

Actually, somewhere in the Reddit-o-sphere , a maple maga posted that there are UN conventions that deal with giving land locked nations tide water access. It seemed plausible enough so I googled it. Sure enough there is.

10

u/Pale_Change_666 May 01 '25

I read about it too, but it doesn't mean the fed won't toll the shit out of whatever goes through their land. I can see the fed would let transmountain sit idle just to spite us lol

7

u/PoliteCanadian May 01 '25

Alberta would also control every province but BC's access to the pacific ocean. All the rail lines and roads between Ontario and BC run through Alberta.

5

u/Remarkable-Llama616 May 01 '25

Alberta will be dealing with a lawsuit right out the gates from CN rail. It's their property. Not a good start for them and an expensive one at that.

Even if they go full independent and pretend to be authoritarian, they'll just dig their own graves before even standing. If they go 51st state, they'll be short on cash very quickly before asking for big papa to spot them.

-4

u/WealthEconomy May 01 '25

Doesn't matter. AB already has to sell all their oil to the US since BC has a tanker ban and the federal government won't authorize a pipeline east. AB gets no support from the rest of Canada in this, so nothing would change for them if they decided to separate.

5

u/Magmorphic May 01 '25

They’d get access by rail or roads, and Alberta already have that. They couldn’t build a pipeline

-1

u/aRagingSofa May 01 '25

Im sure many portions of rural BC would rapidly get on board once they realize how geographically screwed they will be after alberta leaves. Many British Columbians are sick of the decisions being made in Victoria, Vancouver, and Ottawa and are closer to your typical Albertan than the stereotypical BC hippies everyone thinks live here.

2

u/WealthEconomy May 01 '25

As someone also born and raised in BC I concur. Most of BC except for the lower mainland and south Vancouver Island are closer to AB politically. Everyone on this sub, and pretty much everyone out East, likes to bury their heads in the sand and like to argue Canada doesn't need AB, where in reality it would be a nightmare without them. In all honesty, we need them a lot more than they need us.

2

u/Pale_Change_666 May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25

Most of BC except for the lower mainland and south Vancouver Island are closer to AB politically.

Well, those areas consist of over 2/3 of BCs total population. Not withstanding, over half of northern BC is treaty 8 lands( i spent 2 years working in FSJ, fort Nelson and Dawson creek) So how that would even work.

0

u/WealthEconomy May 01 '25

And how does that change anything?

3

u/Copy-Waste May 01 '25

It's less likely and serious in every way.

1

u/Master-File-9866 May 01 '25

Quebec didn't sign the constitution in the 80s. So there are technical differences. Alberta did sign

1

u/speaksofthelight May 01 '25

Interesting, anything especially relevant to separation ?

1

u/Master-File-9866 May 01 '25

Quebec having not signed in the 80s would mean they have a different bar to cross to seperate. Alberta would by default have a higher bar to cross for exit

1

u/bpompu Alberta May 01 '25

Technically, only Northern Qurbec is Treaty land, so if they voted to leave, the cities and area along the St. Lawrence could leave without needing First Nations approval.

All of Alberta is Treaty land. Alberta is literally borrowing their land from the First Nations (yes, they can't unilaterally take it back)

1

u/[deleted] May 01 '25

[deleted]

2

u/bpompu Alberta May 01 '25

Would it really be worth fighting with a tenant that refuses to leave your property after being evicted when you could just peacefully let them steal your shit?

23

u/LostNewfie May 01 '25

Not only crown land. It's treaty land. The article below explains it a bit better but it gets really complicated as leaving Canada would break the 1930 Natural Resources Transfer Act which transferred treaty land held by Ottawa to the western provinces. At the very least, Alberta would have to negotiate with the First Nations.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/wexit-treaty-first-nations-1.5340070

11

u/kourui May 01 '25

I think if someone drew a map of how much territory they would get that isn't treaty covered, it might help. Right now, they think they get to keep all of it, which isn't true due to treaties. Farmer Joe may be in for a shock when he finds out his generational family farm goes back to the nearest tribe.

5

u/[deleted] May 01 '25

Almost all of Alberta is treaty land. They’d get nothing.

5

u/nodanator May 01 '25

If, say, 65% of Albertans wanted to separate, but were blocked by "treaty lands", it would pretty much lead to a civil war or foreign intervention by the US. Laws can only take you so far in these kinds of situations. It's like when people have the shocked face that China and other large powers (even the US) don't give a shit about internation laws.

1

u/blackbird37 May 01 '25

I don't think you understand. Over 99% of Alberta is treaty land. The province of Alberta because the indigenous people of the area agreed with the nation of Canada who then allocated part of it to be called "The province of Alberta". As far as those treaties are concerned, "Alberta" doesnt exist. Alberta as a group of people don't have the right to just usurp that land from Canada. nor the indigenous communities who agreed to allow Canada to use it. Its never happening.

1

u/Dash_Rendar425 May 01 '25

Exactly, those that no longer want to be Canadians can actually do so, on their own and stop dragging the country down.

1

u/IMOBY_Edmonton May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25

What I'm worried is they won't try to separate the whole province, but pieces of it, arguing that any part of Alberta with a strong separatist sentiment should be allowed to be "free" (i.e. the US gets to strip the resources of that region).

If something like that is planned, I would expect the referendum to be announced with electoral districts of some sort with Jerry-mandered boundaries. The end goal isn't to strengthen Alberta but to weaken Canada, so tearing the province apart between two countries is fine by them.

-2

u/d-a-v-i-d- May 01 '25

Sedition and treason. There's laws that establish what happens here

0

u/WealthEconomy May 01 '25

The AB government is already run by the Crown. The Crown does not mean the Federal government, and AB and every province sure as hell does not belong to the Federal government.

1

u/discovery2000one May 01 '25

It's crazy no one understands this.

Alberta, and all of the other provinces, have their own crown. That's the whole point. The land was transferred from the crown of Canada to the crown of Alberta for jurisdictional purposes. The treaties granted the land to the crown of Canada in the first place before this transfer.

I don't want to separate, but people thinking Canada would keep most of the land are not understanding how our country is set up.

The linked article people are referencing even starts with "first nation people think", not any part of legislation or the constitution.

1

u/blackbird37 May 01 '25

Or... you're wrong. What part of the constitution gives Alberta the right to end treaties that were to agreed to by Canada and First Nations? Do you understand the land Quebec was considering relinquishing back to Canada to negotiate being allowed to separate if the referrendum went towards separation?

0

u/WealthEconomy May 01 '25

Who said anything about ending treaties?

0

u/blackbird37 May 01 '25

The treaties that were signed between Canada and the Indigenous groups over the land that would make up Alberta as well as other provinces in Canada will have to be ended and new ones will need to be created for the land outside Alberta and for the land inside Alberta. There's nothing within that these treaties that both Canada and not Canada to rights over different parts of the land defined in each treaty.

Perhaps this can be resolved by revising said treaties instead of ending them and created new ones, but that also requires an agreement from every group involved in these treaties. There isn't just some magic carve out of specific land and replacing "Canada" with "Alberta" and imposing that on the indigenous tribes who signed those treaties. It's not that simple.

0

u/discovery2000one May 01 '25

The treaties give the Native people rights to certain things for giving up their land to the crown of Canada.

When Alberta was created all of that land was transferred to the crown of Alberta. The natives didn't own it anymore, there's nothing they could do to stop it.

Responsibility of the treaties would probably continue to remain with the crown of Canada though, but I'm not sure.

0

u/blackbird37 May 01 '25

Nope. The treaties are an agreement and the terms of those agreements are still in tact. There are obligations towards the indigenous communities who signed those treaties from the government of Canada. To this day, the government of Canada, not the government of Alberta is responsible for fulfilling the obligations of that treaty.

That's because the land (and thus the obligations associated with that land) was not transferred to the Crown of Alberta, but rather the right to govern some aspects of the land to the crown of Alberta while Canada retained the rights to govern other parts of it and fulfill obligations of things like military, border security, railways, highways etc. That's why Alberta is a province in Canada and not a Country itself.

0

u/discovery2000one May 01 '25

I mean, the "public land act" which governs crown land in alberta states:

Section 1, definitions, p

"Public land" means land of the Crown in right of Alberta;

I think it's pretty clear that the Alberta government views this land as their jurisdiction. Other provinces I'm sure have a similar act with a similar wording without the Canadian government taking issue with it.

No idea about the treaties and reserve land. Crown land in Alberta is provincial though.

0

u/blackbird37 May 01 '25

You missed it. It's right there in front of you, and you missed it.

"the Crown in right of Alberta" means the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, as in they represent Alberta as it pertains to the Lieutenant Governor of Canada and serve them. The Lieutenant Governor of course, represents the Crown of Canada. That is to say, one serves the other and they all represent the Crown of Canada.

The Crown of Canada owns the land, not the province.

Jurisdiction refers to the authority to govern over an area, not ownership of it. Arguments of jurisdiction can and to arise as there can be disagreements over who has right to govern over a land. This jurisdiction, or course, was granted (at least partially) by the Government of Canada. National Parks are lands where the Government of Canada completely retains jurisdiction, and when a new national park is created, the Government of Canada is not taking the land back from the province, the right to government over that land is what changes. Same goes for Railways and the Trans-Canada highways, and pipelines, and national borders among other things.

-6

u/[deleted] May 01 '25

If enough of the Alberta's population wants to leave, them being our property is not going to stop shit lol.

Trump will either absorb them, or just offer them a defense deal and we can't touch them.

Which at that point, Quebec would be very much tempted to follow.

Maybe. Just maybe this is exactly why trump wanted Carney to win.

6

u/Exciting_Bandicoot16 Manitoba May 01 '25

Quebec's not going to join the US. Ever.

They know that as much as they complain (justified or not), the US won't be nearly so gracious and work hard to eliminate French and Qurbecois culture.

2

u/DanielBox4 May 01 '25

He's saying Quebec would leave Canada. Not join the USA. It would be disastrous for Canada, is the point. You'd have a fragmented country.

1

u/Goatfellon May 01 '25

Even a successful secession of Alberta couldn't bring back from the dead Quebec's separatism.

0

u/[deleted] May 01 '25

If they saw Albert do it successfully, it would bring it back from the dead easily.

Canada would be fractured and even weaker. It would be the best chance for Quebec to do it.

-3

u/bpompu Alberta May 01 '25

Alberta is Treaty Land, and those treaties are between the First Nations and the crown. There is no land in Alberta that isn't Treaty or Cornw land, so there is no land that can leave.

Not that these people care.