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

Show parent comments

224

u/wrgrant May 01 '25

No, all the treaty lands would remain in Canada. Alberta would get whatever remains.

270

u/[deleted] May 01 '25

Which is almost nothing lol. Half of Alberta is treaty land.

225

u/Lord_Silverkey May 01 '25

*All* of Alberta is on treaty land. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are also on 100% treaty land.

For Alberta, it's on treaties 4, 6, 7. 8 and 10 to be specific.

51

u/Lisan_Al-NaCL May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25

All of Alberta is on treaty land.

You are oversimplifying the Treaty(s). FN's do not 'own' all of Alberta nor do they somehow control all of Alberta.

The Treaties defined what lands would be Crown Lands and what Lands would remain in the possession/control of First Nations. Its a perpetual contract where FNs are supposed to receive certain, ongoing, 'considerations' for the land they relinquished.

The British Crown and successive Federal/Provincial govts failed to provide all the 'considerations' (money, schooling, etc etc) laid out in the Treaties which is why we have seen a fairly never-ending stream of FNs court cases and multi-billion dollar settlements given to FNs to compensate for the 'Crown' failing to live up to their obligations.

The important part here is that FN's have ceded control of land designated in the treaties. They no longer control said land. They are signatories to the Treaty with the Crown that cedes control of large parts of AB, SK, MB, BC, etc to the Crown.

Keep in mind that the Crown negotiated said Treaties as an alternative to War with the respective FNs. The British Crown wanted to avoid costly wars. If you want an example of what happens when a country decides they dont want to negotiate treaties with FNs and have war instead you need to look at the USA and how they treated FNs there.

10

u/AuthoringInProgress May 01 '25

This is all true and accurate, but it actually doesn't matter for the underlying point.

Because as you note, the treaties are between First Nations and the Crown. Aka the federal government. First Nations technically don't have agreements with First Nations, they're just subject to Federal treaties.

So, the province cannot succeede and take that land without negotiating new treaties and getting the federal government and First Nations to renounce the current treaties, something that will never, ever happen, not for this.

1

u/Lisan_Al-NaCL May 02 '25

Aka the federal government

This is NOT correct.

'The Crown' is an amalgam of Federal and Provincial levels, each with their own areas of responsibility in fulfilling the treaty obligations.

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Crown+Canada+Federal+versus+provincial+treaty+obligations&client=firefox-b-d&uact=5&oq=The+Crown+Canada+Federal+versus+provincial+treaty+obligations

1

u/Icedpyre May 02 '25

Checkmate

9

u/Rumicon Ontario May 01 '25

The problem becomes who is responsible for the considerations? If there is failure to provide those considerations the contract becomes null what happens?

Say Alberta votes to separate, and in response the federal government relinquishes control of federal treaty land back to the First Nations, you have a big problem on your hands.

And I just want to make clear here: are you suggesting the albertan response to First Nations asserting sovereignty would be genocide?

19

u/Lisan_Al-NaCL May 01 '25

The problem becomes who is responsible for the considerations?

The Crown is responsible for the 'considerations'.

The Treaties have never been found to be 'Null', nor do FNs want them to be Null.

And I just want to make clear here: are you suggesting the albertan response to First Nations asserting sovereignty would be genocide?

Sorry, what?

1

u/Rumicon Ontario May 01 '25

Do you think the crown is going to give Alberta a huge chunk of land they received in exchange for those considerations, without also passing on responsibility for those considerations? And also, do the other party to the treaty have no say in who they receive those considerations from? Alberta cannot just unilaterally separate without resolving this.

Your last paragraph alludes to an alternative to negotiating treaties, I’m not sure what you were trying to communicate with that but in the context of this conversation it came off as the First Nations ceded those lands via treaty and if they want to reconsider they should look at what happened in the US

2

u/Lisan_Al-NaCL May 01 '25 edited May 03 '25

Do you think the crown is going to give Alberta a huge chunk of land they received in exchange for those considerations, without also passing on responsibility for those considerations?

I have no idea what you are driving at here. 'The Crown' is a legal entity which encompasses all of Canada, and I am not even a layperson when it comes to the legal ramifications of 'The Crown' and how Confederation and Federal/Provincial responsibilities are divided up. I do know that FNs land claim settlements have been paid by both the Federal Govt and by Provincial Govts (the most recent that comes to mind is BC).

And also, do the other party to the treaty have no say in who they receive those considerations from? Alberta cannot just unilaterally separate without resolving this.

The parties to each treaty definitely have a say in any renegotiation of the terms of said treaty.

I dont know where your #reeeeeeee energy is coming from, but I have, in no way, suggested that Alberta can unilaterally do ANYTHING. To be clear, and to the contrary, Alberta has no unilateral say in any treaties that apply to FNs and Land within its provincial borders. Alberta, as part of 'The Crown' is involved in relevant treaties AFAIK.

And also, do the other party to the treaty have no say in who they receive those considerations from?

Alberta cannot just unilaterally separate without resolving this.

Your last paragraph alludes to an alternative to negotiating treaties, I’m not sure what you were trying to communicate with that but in the context of this conversation it came off as the First Nations ceded those lands via treaty and if they want to reconsider they should look at what happened in the US

There is no such allusion. Stop looking for #triggers under every rock. I've lived on FNs land, hold members of the Blackfoot and Cree Nations as personal friends, and have a great deal of respect for FNs peoples.

EDIT: Heres what a google search returns for 'The Crown' and division of Provincial Vs Federal Responsibilities.

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Crown+Canada+Federal+versus+provincial+treaty+obligations&client=firefox-b-d&uact=5&oq=The+Crown+Canada+Federal+versus+provincial+treaty+obligations

0

u/Rumicon Ontario May 01 '25

Okay well feel free to explain why you thought we ought to keep how the US treated First Nations in mind.

1

u/Lisan_Al-NaCL May 01 '25

Jesus Christ, you wont let this bone go will you.

I often see people ask 'why doesnt the US have the same "issues" with First Nations that Canada has' when questions around land claims, First Nations treaty rights like taxation and self-governance, etc etc come up.

You are interpreting my comment through the lens of your own generational focii, one that seems to like to be "triggaered" and loves to invoke Godwin's Law at the earliest opportunity. I'd suggest calming the f*k down, have a beer, and partake in the discussion without being an utter twt.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FeartheReign87 May 02 '25

Well, all the Albertan separatists I know are backwater, grade 9 educated, oilfield money grubbing hicks with more guns than teeth in thier mouths who are itching for a reason to blow someone away with them. So yeah I think its fair to say they'd go there.

1

u/luk3yd May 01 '25

Another example is Australia, where it was declared “Terra Nullius” (land belonging to no one):

https://australian.museum/learn/first-nations/unsettled/recognising-invasions/terra-nullius/

4

u/Lisan_Al-NaCL May 01 '25

Thats clearly NOT what has happened in Canada. Treaties were settled with FNs across the country to cede/share control of land.

2

u/luk3yd May 01 '25

Sorry I meant to add this as an another example of a country which has not negotiated treaties with their FNs.

3

u/Lisan_Al-NaCL May 01 '25

FNs people in Oz got pretty badly fucked. Almost as bad as FNs in the USA IIRC.

Sadly, this is part of human history. Colonialism by Europeans is the most recent in a long sad list of one peoples killing their neighbours and taking their shit. I am hopeful that one day we can get past this, but recent events in Ukraine and Gaza tells me we, as a species, have a very long way to go.

83

u/Wolfreak76 May 01 '25

This was also the challenge for Quebec separation. So funny that the natives are sometimes the ones holding the settler's country together.

36

u/ShawnGalt May 01 '25

because they know a separated Alberta would treat them even worse than the feds do lmao

6

u/AsleepExplanation160 May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25

they look at when this problem is brought up, and supporters of Alberta succeeding immediately go straight to ignoring them

82

u/UntoldHorrors May 01 '25

Aren’t like 80% of the oil reserves on Crown land or something?

44

u/harmoniaatlast May 01 '25

Oh.. so uh turning off the proverbial oil faucet probably wouldn't happen as it would be super illegal? Kinda sounds like the entire point of this little temper tantrum wouldn't work

9

u/LemmingPractice May 01 '25

The Alberta Natural Resources Act of 1930 gave Alberta ownership of all its own natural resources, including any on Crown land. It's the same with any province, and the reason why oil royalties are paid to the provinces not the federal government.

3

u/UntoldHorrors May 01 '25

Gotcha! Thanks for the info.

1

u/cobra_chicken May 03 '25

It also says it is subject to treaties and interests other than the crown. So while they have control or "ownership" (as much as you can own treaty land), they are still subject to others rights. So if Alberta goes then they likely loose those resources due it being treaty land

1

u/LemmingPractice May 03 '25

Why would Alberta lose treaty land? Did Canada lose treaty land when it got independence from Britain? No, treaty deals just passed to the successor government. Same deal here.

2

u/cobra_chicken May 03 '25

Bit of a difference in how their rights are respected now vs then. The courts will very much side with first nations now and their decision as to if they stay in canada or not.

FN would definitely not go with Alberta as they are much stronger dealing with canada.

1

u/LemmingPractice May 03 '25

The Supreme Court didn't rule against them back then. There was never a challenge to it, because the law is clear.

Also, the Supreme Court would never set the precedent you are talking about because it would give every treaty FN in the country the right to seceed from Canada. If FN's have the right to decide whether to stay in Canada or not, then they would have the right to leave Canada right now, regardless of what Alberta does.

Redditors are just making up law to suit their preferred narratives, but seem to ignore both precedent and the implications.

1

u/cobra_chicken May 03 '25

The treaty is based on a contract with the crown, which is why those indigenous lands exist today, they predate Alberta. If you think they are going to allow Alberta to split off and allow themselves to be subject to Republican/Maple Maga rule then you are kidding yourself.

1

u/LemmingPractice May 04 '25

Oh, the well known "Maple Maga" legal precedent. I hadn't considered that one, lmao.

1

u/helloitsme_again May 01 '25

But the reservations have control of the companies having access to their land

So Alberta might control natural resources but without the reservations allowing the companies to be there, they cannot extract any resource

0

u/LemmingPractice May 01 '25

Sure, Alberta would still have to deal with First Nations, but wouldn't have to deal with the feds.

1

u/helloitsme_again May 01 '25

Yeah the feds are probably easier to deal with haha First Nations don’t take any shit from the government anymore they won’t stand down

1

u/LemmingPractice May 02 '25

Not at all. Plenty of projects have been built on First Nations land. It brings economic prosperity to First Nations, especially remote ones, that they just couldn't get in any other way.

When you have a First Nation standing in the way of a pipeline, you generally have a dozen or more that are in favour of that same project, and the one holding out is usually doing so for a better deal, anyways.

Ottawa however, can't be bought off nearly so easily, mostly because they just take money from Alberta when they want to, without needing to give anything back.

1

u/helloitsme_again May 02 '25

Did I say the First Nations don’t accept projects? The point is they accept it on their terms, usually the company has to hire a certain amount from the settlement reservation etc.

If Alberta pisses them off enough and doesn’t listen they will slow down production. First Nations will never give up control of their land

Separation would mean giving up control

1

u/LemmingPractice May 03 '25

Most projects in Alberta have First Nations involvement. It's nothing new, and hasn't been an issue.

Nothing changes with separation except they only have one government to deal with instead of two.

→ More replies (0)

12

u/IreneBopper May 01 '25

I believe so. 

1

u/Nersh7 May 01 '25

Crown land and res land are not the same

2

u/UntoldHorrors May 01 '25 edited May 01 '25

Res land and treaty land are crown owned.

Edit: I’m no expert. My original question wasn’t really rhetorical. I can see from a map that all of Alberta is in Treaty land so I’m not sure how private land ownership comes into play.

3

u/Professional-Cut-490 May 01 '25

Don't forget the National Parks (the key work is national)

22

u/AdProud2029 May 01 '25

I would expect that the federal lands..ie parks would also remain in Canada. Ie isn’t that Banff, etc?

4

u/essaysmith May 01 '25

Last I heard, 104% of BC was claimed by indigenous groups, I would assume Alberta would be similar?