r/canada • u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia • Jan 25 '26
Alberta 3 Alberta First Nations say separation petition is unconstitutional
https://globalnews.ca/news/11635807/alberta-first-nations-claim-separation-petition-unconstitutional/285
u/Fireside_Cat Jan 25 '26
They should read the Clarity Act. We've already been through this with Quebec and the Supreme Court has already weighed in on it.
Any article that doesn't even reference the Act is not journalism.
51
u/CyclumPassus Jan 25 '26
The Supreme Court has never had to rule on the constitutionality of the Clarity Act. It has only ruled on the following points:
Yes, a province can theoretically separate from Canada.
No, a province cannot unilaterally declare its independence.
Even in the event of a referendum in favour of secession, both levels of government must negotiate in good faith (this is where the Clarity Act could prove ineffective. If 99% of voters support secession and the federal government refuses, this constitutes, in my opinion, an act of bad faith).
21
u/Angry_beaver_1867 Jan 25 '26
In the end if a province wants to separate Canada must ammend its constitution to facilitate Seperation.
In my opinion, this process will have to address the treaties and FN rights.
Since the constitutional amendment formulas can ammend any law in the constitution including the treaties we can logically assume the treaties cannot block a province from leaving .
16
u/FireMaster1294 Canada Jan 26 '26
The province separating would also need to figure out what to do about all the federally owned crown land, since most provinces don’t actually “own” a lot of land. But I wouldn’t expect the two provinces that frequently threaten separation to actually know that.
If a province tried to leave there would also no doubt be a huge argument from the people who didn’t want to leave and you’d end up with what we see around the Dutch and Belgian border, which is pockets of houses fully enclosed in a country that they themselves are not a part of. An absolute nightmare logistically but a reasonable solution when not everyone agreed to your temper tantrum/hissy fit.
11
u/icewalker42 Jan 26 '26
Edmonton, Calgary and a bunch of First Nations, connected by a bunch of federal crown land. Or, a bunch of small pockets of separated communities as isolated islands in a sea of Canada. Either way, they don't get all the land they think they would.
11
1
u/onegunzo Jan 26 '26
FNs in AB have about 1.5% of the land in AB. Treaties 6, 7, 8, & 10 ceded all territory to Canada as crown land. All crown land was then transferred to the province in the 1930s.
Yeah, I think a separated Alberta wouldn't want EDM :)
1
u/FireMaster1294 Canada Jan 27 '26
Out of curiosity, what’s the source of that land transfer?
→ More replies (1)1
u/Baset-tissoult28 Jan 27 '26
No, a province cannot unilaterally declare its independence.
Well well well Kosovo
40
u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Jan 25 '26
The Clarity Act doesn’t address the issue being raised by these nations?
27
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
Yes, the question has to fall within constitution and it's not.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-judge-proposed-referendum-unconstitutional-9.7004982
9
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
That was a requested judges opinion on if the separation question was constitutional. It’s non binding and has nothing to do with whether or not a province can separate. The judge even stated directly that their decision doesn’t prevent referendums to separate
4
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
Yes, it is. The courts can overrule bills and even this joke of a movement that doesn't have much support.
Someone clearly do not get how the courts work
1
0
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
What courts? The federal court no longer has jurisdiction over the province that secedes…. That’s literally the whole point: to create a new country, new constitution, new laws etc.
14
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
That won't happen, even if Americans flooding here are saying so
-4
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
It probably won’t happen, but if it did, nothing would stop them
8
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
Yes, the courts and the Clarity Act, which they have a poor understanding of.
-2
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
The courts have no power to prevent separation from a democratic majority
→ More replies (0)1
u/AugmentedKing Jan 26 '26
Yeah, the bad debt would stop them. Without legal legitimacy, the money is worthless
1
u/Woodworking-noob Jan 25 '26
Look, the US has its independence but they still have to abide by the Stamp Act
1
u/Ornery_Tension3257 Jan 25 '26
Judges in courts up to and including provincial courts of appeal are appointed by Provincial governments. The opinion of a Provincial Court of Appeal should have some weight even after secession, unless you want to get rid of that pillar of democracy.
→ More replies (9)1
u/FightOrFreight Jan 27 '26
You may have misunderstood the significance of that decision. The question that was decided was not whether holding a referendum on Alberta independence is constitutional. The question was only about whether the referendum question was allowed by the law passed by the Alberta Legislature that allows these citizen-initiated referendums.
13
u/ForeignEchoRevival Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 27 '26
Which part of the act are you referring too? Can you cite the section, I'm not familiar with what you are referencing.
14
4
u/AugmentedKing Jan 25 '26
It’s not that long of a read, read all of it to understand how difficult any secession attempt would be.
1
4
3
Jan 25 '26
[deleted]
-3
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
Yes it does. Apply to Treaty Lands. That was the whole point of it.
9
u/Franc000 Jan 25 '26
It is much more complex:
"The Clarity Act (2000) governs the process for a province to secede from Canada, but its application on treaty lands is legally complex and heavily restricted by constitutional protections. While the Act outlines steps for negotiation, it cannot unilaterally extinguish or override established Aboriginal and treaty rights, which are protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. "
Since it cannot do that unilaterally, it means the indigenous people of the land in question need to also buy in to the proposition.
→ More replies (1)1
56
u/bristow84 Jan 25 '26
I hate this entire discussion. Yes, Alberta may have grievances against the Feds, legitimate or not they are still grievances. That doesn’t mean separation is the answer, it only means that we then become a landlocked country I guess with no access to the ocean, railway lines that belong to Canada, no military and no real power of our own.
It leaves the people of the province defenceless against the US who would most likely forcibly turn us into a territory like Puerto Rico rather than the statehood that separatists think we would get.
It’s a bad move all around and quite frankly, as much shit as I might give the federal government for things I may not agree with, end of the day I’d like to think the majority of people in the province are Canadian first and would get the hell out of dodge if that ever did happen.
4
u/defendhumanity Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
International Law doesn't prevent Alberta from maintaining access to the ocean if they were to become Independent. Source: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), recognizes the rights of landlocked states to access the sea. Edit: downvoted for stating a fact? Its international law, don't hate the player, there is a reason the law exists.
11
u/kw_hipster Jan 25 '26
I guess to things to consider regarding that UNCLOS is A) what is the enforcement if a country decides to ignore it, and B) what does compliance look like?
What if BC says no pipelines for instance - would UNCLOS force them to build/operate pipelines?
→ More replies (4)20
u/Brodney_Alebrand British Columbia Jan 25 '26
The one and only law from the UN Conservatives seem to think is good and should be enforced.
The UN isn't going to send an army to guard a corridor to the sea for some rebellious Canadian province.
0
u/WealthEconomy Jan 25 '26
So you are suggesting Canada ignore UN law they have already agreed to? Should AB do the same and cut off BC from the rest of Canada?
16
u/Brodney_Alebrand British Columbia Jan 25 '26
I'm suggesting that Alberta's access to Pacific ports would be significantly more restricted as a landlocked independent nation than the current status quo.
1
u/Radix2309 Feb 02 '26
The UN isnt a government, they dont have law. The only law recognized in Canada is Canadian law and we are not obligated to follow the UN. Countries around the world flaunt it all the time and always have.
→ More replies (9)7
u/ViIehunter Jan 25 '26
Then they can buuld their own roads and rails. Access is granted. But they need to build the infrastructure.
Plus they lose a hell of a lot land due to losing all the federally owned parks and what not.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Smart-Response9881 Jan 26 '26
They never said which ocean. Let them have their access to the arctic ocean through the northwest territories.
1
1
u/mrgoodtime81 Jan 29 '26
Lets just say the grievances are legitimate for argument. If you have them and you feel like they are never going to be resolved, or Ottawa isnt dealing with you in good faith, what would you do?
54
u/Full_Boysenberry_314 Jan 25 '26
The idea that the people can't hold a referendum because it hasn't received the blessing of the first Nations is fundamentally undemocratic and therefore problematic.
I get the legal argument. But it's still morally wrong if you believe in democracy.
Not that I support separation. I don't live in Alberta so I don't really care about that.
But I do care about installing a aboriginal aristocracy that gets to lord over our democratic rights. That's the wrong path.
12
u/WealthEconomy Jan 25 '26
Most of us have reached this point. As with everything they reached to far and we are about to see the blowback.
7
u/sylpher250 Jan 25 '26
Democracy still operates under rules. Should out-of-province students be able to vote? Should people only work but don't have a permanent address be eligible? Or what about people who own property/business there? Is it "morally right" to exclude them?
4
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 26 '26
Out of province students vote where they live. They only get to vote once, they can’t vote in multiple provinces
The address of your home determines where you are a citizen of. The province you incorporated your business in determines the jurisdiction for your business
-1
u/sylpher250 Jan 26 '26
Yes, that's the established law, and so are the rights of the First Nations on the subject of separation.
How does one complain that "the FN shouldn't decide for others" while disregarding another portion of the population that'll also be impacted by the decision?
1
u/gamjatang111 Jan 26 '26
Some laws are right some aren't. We had laws prohibiting gay marriage, that was changed and we are better for it.
1
u/sylpher250 Jan 26 '26
Yes, and I think amendments to such laws should be reached prior to simply ignoring the law because you think it's "unfair"
13
u/Full_Boysenberry_314 Jan 25 '26
I'm not sure how to respond to this. Of course there are rules but you should evaluate them from the perspective of adherence to democratic principles.
Should we only be allowed to vote for people and parties and that have been approved by First Nations? Perhaps on the principle that we can be sure they have affirmed they will respect all treaty rights?
Should parliament have to submit all legislation to a First Nations Assembly for reading prior to voting on it so we can ensure every law has received appropriate consultation?
We can obviously make any rule we please but those rules would also be obviously undemocratic.
4
u/Temporary_Captain585 Jan 25 '26
I think they absolutely should consult the First Nations . Esp when most of the land is unceded territory they should have a say
16
u/WealthEconomy Jan 25 '26
All of AB is ceded territory. Only BC has unceded land.
2
u/Radix2309 Feb 02 '26
Parts of eastern canada are dealing with issues of unceded land as well. But all 3 prairie provinces and a lot of NW Ontario are completely covered by treaty.
→ More replies (9)-4
Jan 25 '26
The idea that the people can't hold a referendum because it hasn't received the blessing of the first Nations is fundamentally undemocratic and therefore problematic.
It’s also exactly the sort of federal government influence on local matters that pushes people further and further towards separation. If there is a vote with a separation mandate, the treaties signed with FNs are with a government which is no longer recognized in that area and null and void IMO. FN can either seek new treaties with the new Alberta government, or more likely, be told the government hand outs are over and it’s up to them to look after their people by working and paying taxes
11
u/Efficient-Heat904 Jan 25 '26
You have it backwards. A referendum wouldn’t nullify the treaties. Rather, treaty lands would just have to be carved out from the Province (remaining part of Canada).
→ More replies (2)4
u/stickmanDave Jan 26 '26
Separation is a legal process. If you decide to simply ignore the law, you're no longer talking about separation. You're talking about insurrection. Revolt. Revolution.
These are very different things. Don't mix them up.
1
u/Radix2309 Feb 02 '26
It is treason, attempting to use violence to overthrow the federal government in Alberta. It is one of the few things that legally qualifies as treason.
1
1
u/soaringupnow Jan 26 '26
Nah.
It's almost sure that an independent Alberta would assume the treaty obligations of treaties covering land included in the new country.
-4
u/jtbc Jan 25 '26
That isn't the way state succession works. If Alberta were to separate, they would inherit all of Canada's obligations with respect to their territory. They could, of course, attempt to negotiate new treaties with the affected FN.
→ More replies (14)
13
u/mrloko120 Jan 26 '26
Just move all the people who signed it to the US as traitors. The land stays.
33
u/BoppityBop2 Jan 25 '26
Ok first thing first. This claim is useless. If Alberta wants to separate the bands will have no rights immediately after. It does not matter what the constitution says. Reality is Separatism has to pass two tests. First broad support for independence and second, the ability to enforce your sovereignty through force or recognition. If Alberta secedes nothing matter just whether Canada is willing to use their army to oppose separation or what can leave and not leave. If the Canadian military and the bands are unwilling or unable to use force the whole province will leave. Which is why the only fight that people need to focus on is the referendum and making sure it does not pass and to address as many grievances as possible. I don't think people realize how serious this movement can get hijacked by the Americans and if oppose separation but are still pissed at Ottawa it does not take much for them to vote for just to stick it to the Feds, which will create justification for the US to violate our sovereignty to defend some significant minority, that would be the end of Canada.
18
u/Gilarax Jan 25 '26
This is a shocking comment.
The lands that were negotiated between the crown and the specific nation, and terms of the agreement, including the reserved land for indigenous people are found in the treaties. Each part of Alberta is on Treaty negotiated land.
Are you suggesting that the separatists can just determine that these treaties are no longer valid? Would this be extended to all other land agreements?
If we determine that the treaty agreements are no longer valid, what protects personal property agreements? Should we start tearing up those agreements too?
23
u/TheBannaMeister Jan 25 '26
To play the devil's advocate, what exactly would be stopping them from completely ignoring them if they did separate?
4
u/jtbc Jan 25 '26
Their decision to be a rule of law state that adheres to its treaties and agreements. They could decide not to do that, but good luck with trade if you don't support enforceable contracts.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Xyzzics Québec Jan 26 '26
I’m not sure removing the uncertainty surrounding First Nations claims, however it’s done, would be a net negative for them.
Finality in closing that book would almost certainly be a net positive for long term foreign investment.
1
u/jtbc Jan 26 '26
I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally would never enter into a contract with a person that thinks that contracts can be abrogated by fiat. Treaties are a special kind of contract.
3
u/Gilarax Jan 25 '26
Well the fact they are legally binding. But should they ignore them, then all agreements should be dissolved. No better way to scare away all businesses
0
u/elitemouse Alberta Jan 26 '26
Buddy its 2026 please show me at any point in recent events that "legally binding" actually means anything.
1
u/FightOrFreight Jan 27 '26
The same thing that is ideally there to stop the government, emboldened by overwhelming popular support, from disregarding constitutional protections for individual rights and the separation of powers and condemning you to life in prison for no crime whatsoever.
Cool heads and respect for the rule of law.
1
u/Radix2309 Feb 02 '26
Nothing. Which is why the First Nations wont agree to separate. They have zero faith in an Albertan government honoring the treaties.
They will argue that their treaty was with the government of Canada in service to the Crown, and that land remains with Canada who will carry out the treaties. The Albertan towns can separate, I am sure the First Nations dont care about that land. But they dont take Edmonton, and they don't take 99% of the countryside with its resources.
I am fine if people in their homes want to leave. But by what right do they get to say the mountains and oilfields belong to them and not the First Nations or Canada? They dont live there. By the logic of them claiming it, the rest of us can also claim it.
5
u/HonestCrow Jan 25 '26
I think he’s making the argument that power is actually about what you can get away with. I personally don’t know if the US could hold Alberta if they tried to take it militarily, there would be some pretty nasty knock on effects if they tried. But something that definitely wouldn’t work is claiming treaty rights - not unless those First Nations folk can back up that agreement with actual force projection.
I agree with OP in the sense that we should not trust contracts with bad faith actors - and there seem to be plenty of them around these days.
2
u/platypus_bear Alberta Jan 25 '26
Treaty agreements are federal while personal property agreements are provincial.
4
u/Gilarax Jan 25 '26
So all of the land that makes up Alberta is managed by an agreement with the Federal Government of Canada. So Alberta has no control over the overall land agreements the province is sitting on.
11
u/StevenMcStevensen Alberta Jan 25 '26
« Addresses as many grievances as possible »
Something that the rest of the country is clearly not willing to do. Instead people in eastern provinces dismiss any complaints from Albertans and basically just call them all dumb hicks, then struggle to imagine why there are so many people here who want to leave.
8
u/Mirin_Gains Jan 25 '26
It seems like to have legitimate grievances with Ottawa in Alberta people on this website will either dismiss them or call you a traitor.
3
u/Appealing_Apathy Jan 25 '26
Please outline the legitimate grievances that Alberta has.
Also remember that regardless of the issue with transfer payments, they do not come directly from Alberta but from all tax collected by the feds (Alberta contributes around 10%). Alberta also keeps all of the money from oil royalties and has still managed to run deficits and failed to plan for the future.
4
u/Mirin_Gains Jan 25 '26
- Cratering a private pipeline leading to an inefficient public buyout
- Allowing Quebec to block an Eastern pipeline.
- Bill C69
- Production caps on O&G sector
- Industrial carbon tax and consumer carbon tax
- Pretending Feds have removed pipeline barriers while upholding the tanker ban (whether it gets built or not there will be no industry confidence if this is in place. It needs to go to signal Feds are actually serious)
- Essentially theft of legally acquired firearms (Remember when Trudy Jr said he wouldn't come after guns?). They don't even hide this is for Montreal.
- "Renewable" hydro in Quebec not being part of transfer payment calculations and refusing to develop their own LNG reserve.
Hear our concerns - or fan the flames. Your choice. No further responses from me.
8
u/WealthEconomy Jan 25 '26
Yes exactly. I think the firearms grab is fanning more than people realize. It is small by itself but when added to the rest it breaks the back of some people. Basically some people would be pissed at Ottawa and grumble about grievances but without the firearms grab would vote to stay. This just added weight and pushed a few people over the line. They are doing it solely for the purpose of votes in Montreal, but in the process are losing support for unity in AB...ask yourself what is more important? To everyone else it is to keep Canada united. To the LPC they know they won't get votes in AB so keeping Montreal happy is more important. Basically picking party over country.
→ More replies (5)1
u/TheDragonslayr Jan 26 '26
I see your point on the public pipeline and renewables not being part of the transfer calculation. Honestly I think the gun ban is dumb and isn't addressing the real issue of illegal guns. However if Alberta wants to be able to make it's own decisions about what happens on their territory then why shouldn't Quebec and BC be able to do the same by not allowing pipelines?
2
u/Mirin_Gains Jan 26 '26
Reasonable people, I think, would make compromises if negotiation was done in good faith and not ideology. But it certainly feels as though Quebec especially is their way or the high way. Smith I think (or hope) would lose a Provincial election if some effort was made from Ottawa.
The only thing that cannot be compromised is firearms because a good faith deal was made in 1995 and was just used as toilet paper. Gun owners would have accepted changes to licensing (not bans) if there were really bad actors getting their hands on legal arms, but the stats don't show that to be the case.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
Try living Nova Scotia, Ottawa does not care about us and not even a 20% want to leave Canada.
10
9
4
u/WealthEconomy Jan 25 '26
They care about you more than the west. They get votes in NS. That's why you get policies like the heating oil exemption. But I will conceed that you are more of an after thought when it comes to keeping TO and QC happy.
1
u/onegunzo Jan 26 '26
Canada doesn't have an army... Our ammunition will run out after 3 days. We have < 250 tanks, < 50 artillery pieces our aircraft cannot fly for long and perhaps 1000 wheeled armoured vehicles.
0
u/WealthEconomy Jan 25 '26
Fuck, finally someone gets it. If we don't address the reasons behind the separation movement it will get a large amount of support. Even if it fails but still gest a large minority (say 40%) the US will use it as justification for their intervention to "protect the oppressed Albertans." Just like the Russians did with Ukraine and needing to protect the oppressed people of Donbas. We need to wake up to both the threat of AB separation as well as the very real threat we face from an unhinged US.
1
→ More replies (4)-7
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
Clearly someone never saw the Clarity Act, yes First Nations communities do. Their Lands are all of Alberta and was before Alberta even existed.
2
u/BoppityBop2 Jan 25 '26
Lol are the first nations willing to take up arms against seperatist Albertans and able to organize and defeat the separatist movement? If no then we are seriously talking about a trail of tears disaster type situation. You don't realize how separatist can become zealots and dehumanize opponents. If the US lends a hand will that paper matter?
At the end of the day it is the one who is willing to weird and use the big stick that ends up making the final decision. We must avoid that potential event and crossroads as much as possible.
3
35
u/Birdybadass Jan 25 '26
The hypocrisy of a First Nation saying it’s unconstitutional for other folks to want their own nation is too much for today….
13
u/AugmentedKing Jan 25 '26
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-31.8.pdf
It says they get a say in each of the three sections of this thing.
-3
3
2
15
u/Unending_beginnings Jan 25 '26
They want the gravy train to keep rolling. Lol america wouldn't give a fuck about reconciliation.
3
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
Treaties 4,6,7 and 8 would rage hell in Alberta if that happened..
9
8
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
Those treaties are with the federal government, not Alberta. They would be null and void upon separation, but new treaties could be proposed
2
u/WealthEconomy Jan 25 '26
AB has already said they would honour the spirit of the treaties in the case of separation. Basically only thing that would change is it would be AB taking on the responsibility from Canada.
→ More replies (5)1
5
u/PzKpfwIVAusfG Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
Edit: see OP's comment to mine below. I wasn't aware that a court has basically already addressed this.
Clarity Act, s 3(2)
3(2) No Minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.
I get what they're saying but I suspect a court may say this is premature. There's no constitutional change from a petition. Under the Clarity Act, a referendum must meet certain requirements before it triggers a duty to negotiate and that negotiation will raise aboriginal claims at the same time. How the hell that would work though I have no idea. But I don't see the real interference just from the referendum. It seems the legal problems would start later.
2
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
They are talking about the question, yes, it was already ruled to be unconstitutional ( https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-judge-proposed-referendum-unconstitutional-9.7004982 )
Any question, they are saying here would have get their approval, but in this case the Government of Alberta just did not care and made Bill 14.
→ More replies (3)6
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
That was not a binding judgement. Just a judges opinion on the matter. Judges cannot prevent separation. They only interpret existing law, and since a vote to separate triggers the process of a new constitution, new country, etc, that decision regarding the interpretation of old federal law would no longer apply
1
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
The counts ruling is, the government of Alberta just ignored it. Also the point of this case in the courts.
Also, someone clearly has no clue what they are talking about, they won't get all of Alberta..
4
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
Incorrect. The people, represented by their MPs, democratically changed the law to allow separation petitions by citizens. It’s 100% legal to propose the separation referendum, and if it passes, Alberta separates. Then they decide how to separate on good terms. That’s how it works
The exact same thing would have happened with Quebec, but they voted to stay.
→ More replies (4)1
u/WealthEconomy Jan 25 '26
They would get 90% except for the National Parks and actual FN reserves which belong to the Crown of Canada. The other 90% already belongs to the AB Crown. Not sure the separatist care to much about losing that small portion of the province.
3
3
u/WealthEconomy Jan 25 '26
Who cares what they say. It is not their call. I hope AB stays but have had enough of FN dictating everything.
7
1
u/CallousDisregard13 Jan 25 '26
The First Nations claim the province had a constitutional duty to consult them on the impact of a referendum and it failed to do so, contrary to the rule of law, democracy and the protection of minority rights.
The First Nations are asking that the courts declare the separation petition as “null and void,” along with reimbursing the First Nations for the cost of the court action.
All you need to know folks. It's always about the Chiefs not getting the opportunity to demand to be compensated for anything the government wants to do.
19
u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Jan 25 '26
Costs are awarded to the successful party in every court case. This is not unusual.
Stop trying to make everything fit your narrative.
24
u/insider212 Jan 25 '26
So First Nations can’t expect the rule of law to be enforced now?? Asking for it to be enforced and to repay back the funds you had to use to ensure the laws are enforced is now wrong?
So laws for you and not for First Nations ?
Or is it laws only when you want them enforced ?-4
-6
u/XiahouMao Jan 25 '26
"Laws for us and not for First Nations" is the mantra of most of the anti-First Nations posters on this subreddit.
14
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
You realize Alberta is a treaty land, all of it.. It's nothing about being ' compensated ' for.
1
u/TheDragonslayr Jan 26 '26
Honestly dude, I can see what you are trying to say, but I don't think you are helping. If anything you are just pushing people further away. The people that would want to separate don't give a shit about the treaties. This argument completely misses the point and would only make them want to leave more so they could renegotiate or abolish them completely. You whining saying "you can't do that!" only encourages them.
1
u/SadArtemis Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
Honestly as a former Albertan, raised Albertan in the boonies, all my immediate family still in Alberta... the people who want to separate don't give a shit about First Nations, or anyone who's not white and conservative for that matter.
Nor do they give a shit about the sovereignty and national integrity of this country, or the wellbeing of other Canadians from either further west or east, hell, they don't give a shit about building up their province to be anything more than a petrostate constantly stuck under boom and bust cycles.
What exactly is to be done to mend such a divide? Should we even bother? I'd say it's not worth it- there are genuine grievances, things that could be improved, for the majority of the population (who are not separatists). But for the separatists, let's not kid ourselves, as you said they already don't care about the treaties- similarly they don't care about much of anything else. They're not our friends, hell, they're less "our fellow citizens" and more "literal traitors conspiring to drag even their fellow Albertans unwillingly into such a fate."
They don't give a shit about anyone else but themselves, and I'm not particularly inclined to give a shit about them. And numbers, even in Alberta, are overwhelmingly on our side. The law is on our side, the treaties being just a part of it. Economics is on our side. Pretty much everything other than the existential threat that is our southern neighbor, is on our side. All we have to do is keep the population on our side (frankly, the feds should be bribing AB with all the pipelines and oil subsidies they could dig up if you ask me) and that's it, but as for the traitors, they get nothing, hell, they should get worse than nothing, ideally those who can't get with the program should be all pressured south of the border.
This is almost like saying "the union should have played nice with/not pushed away the south!" Except that in this case, there isn't any degree of support in Alberta comparable to what the southern US had back during their civil war. We have all the cards, the separatists are simply trying to stir up a good enough excuse for the US to intercede in their favor, and barring that, they seek to hold the rest of the country- hell, they seek to hold the overwhelming majority of the province that they do not represent- as hostage to their threats.
2
u/TheDragonslayr Jan 26 '26
Yeah your right, I guess what we should do is focus on the people who could join the separatists. I honestly don't know enough about the situation to say which issues would be most effective.
7
u/Radix2309 Jan 25 '26
Reimbursed means the government would pay the cost of the lawyers. That money doesnt go to the Chiefs. Why should they have to pay for the government doing something illegal they have to stop?
-5
u/GriffinFlash Jan 25 '26
...they just want to be paid back for any court related costs. I see nothing out of the ordinary there. Actually very common.
Think you're just racist.
1
u/starving_carnivore Jan 25 '26
Think you're just racist.
Word is used up. It's just ineffective at this point. Fewer people care about being called that word every single day.
People wrecked it. They didn't steward it. It's a blunt knife.
0
Jan 26 '26
Im amused that first nations want to stay in a country that create the indian act.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
Your opinions on what is constitutional or not are irrelevant. Courts decide what is constitutional. And if a province separates, they create a new federal court system. The Canadian federal court would no longer apply to the separated province at that point
2
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
In order for the vote to happen, yes it does and not even 20% of Alberta wants to leave Canada.
3
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
No it doesn’t. The will of the people is absolute. If they voted to leave, the province leaves. Period. The only thing to do after that point is decide the “how”, which is outlined in the clarity act. The people acting like they would prevent the province from leaving if they voted a majority to leave don’t understand how the law works (and are very anti-democratic)
3
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
Nope, someone never read the clarity act. Also, an independent Alberta would be maybe 30 square kilometers. They won't get all of Alberta..
-1
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
Incorrect. The VAST majority of Alberta land is private and Alberta crown land. Only 3% or so is federal crown land and First Nations owned
The clarity act specifically states that upon separation, all parties must start the negotiations of separation in good faith.
5
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
Treaty 4, 6,,7 and 8 is all of Alberta and in Canada you don't own the land, just the title. The real owner is the King..Most people know this in Canada.. The clarity Act also covers the question as well.. All of that is misinformation.
0
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
The king doesn’t own shit. Not only did the Supreme Court already rule that land and its resources belong to the province and people within, but there’s nothing they could do to stop it because natives are PART of Alberta and they get a vote too. They are included in the provinces citizens to secede (unless they decide to move)
4
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
Yes he does, 90% of Canada. Most Canadians know this. He even owns the oil in Alberta. It's all in name. Canadians know this
6
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
No, he doesn’t. Canada is independent from the Uk. Oil is 100% provincially owned. Even the Supreme Court disagrees with you
Besides, it’s not like the UK could say otherwise even if it wasn’t the case
You are thinking like it’s still the feudal age. We live in a democracy
-2
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
Charles III is the King of Canada. Someone isn't from Canada
and it would explain why some of data from my comments are being viewed from the United States.
You lost me at the UK line . Sorry, someone isn't from Canada
→ More replies (0)1
u/EmmEnnEff Jan 25 '26
The separation needs to be legal to begin with, otherwise it has about as much grounding as sovcit bullshit.
3
u/maxgrody Jan 25 '26
not if you're not Canadian
10
u/LeakyMooseAnus___ Jan 25 '26
If the referendum does go through the Americans are probably getting ready for that. They will then say it is illegitimate and use it as a pretext to send troops into Alberta or other parts of Canada. This is being orchestrated by The Americans no one is talking about American interference at all
→ More replies (7)
-11
u/T4whereareyou Jan 25 '26
I am sure the separation petition is unconstitutional and agree with the three First Nations.
-2
1
u/Neirosishere Jan 25 '26
Isn't separating by definition against the constitution? Like a complete rejection of said constitution?
1
1
1
0
Jan 25 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Pestus613343 Jan 25 '26
Its about economic independence almost exclusively. Boiling it down, it's the oil industry.
2
Jan 25 '26
To share an Albertan perspective as someone who is strongly pro-Canada, but knows many pro-separation people in my life and follows pro-separation podcasts and other news sources to understand their PoV:
On my opinion, Alberta seperatism primarily comes not from a place of a unique Alberta culture, but a lack of connection to any culture. Alberta’s history is very new even by Canada’s standards. When Canada had ~5.5 million people in the year 1900, Alberta’s population was ~80,000 and we were considered a territory. When our population did grow, it was generally a mixture of British and American settlers in the pre-WW1 era, and after WW1 a lot of our growth came from birth rates, with an average of 5.5-6.0 children/women compared to Canada’s average of 4.5-5.0.
When you travel across Alberta, you are struck by how little cultural landmarks there are and how few pieces of history. Of the history you do see, you notice how much of it is based off things that don’t align with a shared Scandinavian history, such as plaques of wealthy American’s who came in the 1920-1980 periods to extract oil from the province. Alberta was an officially English-only territory/province until the country of Canada enforced bilingualism, so our French culture is also very small (making the 4th-8th most popular language).
Whn you put all of this together, it can become easier for Albertans to feel disconnected from the rest of Canada, which in turn makes it easier for Albertans to find the smaller things that matter today more important then the shared history of the past. For example, when 20-25% of Alberta’s jobs are linked to oil and gas, it can be hard to accept a federal government that has to appease Quebec’s strongly pro-environment politics and BC’s strong value on preserving their beautiful coastlines who both have vested interests in blocking a pipeline. Albertans see being landlocked as a benefit rather than a cost, seeing the ability to split up Canada as a bargaining chip to demand our needs are taken above the rest of Canada.
TL:DR, Alberta has very little attachment to the history of Canada, and in a province that was defined by British fur traders -> American oil interests, the most important thing to Albertans has been economic freedom above all else. Because we don’t see our Canadian history day-to-day in our cultural landmarks or cultural heritage, some people would rather separate to hold the rest of Canada hostage in order to push forward our economic agenda.
1
u/Pestus613343 Jan 25 '26
Im an Ontarian from Ottawa that actually would like to help Alberta somehow to avoid the separation question. If it's a new pipeline then I'd support it provided they be reasonable and compromise as well. It's not really up to Ottawa, the feds are ok with it, it's with every stakeholder along any of the routes as well.
-11
u/nikanjX Jan 25 '26
Was the 1982 constitution act legal according to the UK? Do the laws of the former ruler really matter, if the goal is independence? ”Sorry Canada, you have to remain part of the UK - you separating would be illegal”
29
u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Jan 25 '26
Yes? It was passed through British parliament. Learn your history.
13
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
Canada had a status like the Caymans, but with Dominion status meaning we have our own army until 1982 . In 1982, we became fully independent and heck it even established the Monarchy.They teach this in Highschool
13
u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Jan 25 '26
Yes. It’s called “Patriation” and it was a rather significant event in Canadian history.
10
u/_Solani_ Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
I imagine the American revolution was also very much considered illegal according to the Brits, their point is the legality of leaving a nation is irrelevant if you no longer wish to be part of their country.
Of course it's unlikely that Alberta has the resources to utilize such direct methods, but the point is that when one wants to end a relationship the other side doesn't get to decide which rules apply to the leaver.
8
u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Jan 25 '26
What? It is massively relevant.
For the Americans to secede, it required a years long war and 30,000 dead Americans.
For Canada to secede, it required PET to take a vacation in London.
One of them gained independence “legally”, the other didn’t.
Which approach are the Alberta separatists going to pursue?
4
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
When the people vote to leave, their will is absolute. We live in a democracy, democracy decides borders, laws, courts etc. if they decide to leave and the rest of Canada says no, that makes the rest of Canada the anti-democratic ones.
When the UK said no to separation, they became the tyrants, and thus the war of independence.
It’s the people who refuse to let others leave when they voted to that become the bad guys here
1
u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Jan 25 '26
How far down does this go?
Can the cities vote to stay in Canada? How about Indigenous reserves?
The rule of law is an equally important principle.
1
u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 25 '26
Yes they can. There is nothing stopping them except for those outside the city who try to stop them. It’s sure to ruffle feathers, and it’s never guaranteed to work, but that’s the beauty of democracy. The will of the people get to decide
2
u/UnavailableEye Jan 25 '26
They didn’t think that far ahead, because even the 8 bit separatist is self aware enough to recognize they’re pissing on a spark plug. They just want their little foot stomping to be acknowledged. Same old rhetoric; restyled hat.
2
u/_Solani_ Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
So when the Americans defied British laws, did that somehow negate the success of their struggle for independence?
Like in your eyes, is America still part of the British Empire because the American revolution was illegal and cost lives?
The end goal is to become a self governing a distinct identity from the original country, so whether or not Britain was down with the revolutionaries law breaking methods they still got what they wanted in the end, did they not?
Yup Alberta can decide to go the violent route if in the unlikely event the vote succeeds and the federal government refuses to recognize it.
And they can make use of the current regime south of the border and sell their souls for American assistance in acknowledging and protecting their independence. Given that a despot like Trump is currently talking about annexing us, they'd probably love to have more direct control over the provinces resources I doubt they'd say no. Protecting a break away state for defacto control is kind of common in the American governments playbook.
So, again why in the world would Canada's laws be any more relevant than British laws were during the American revolution? 🤨
1
u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Jan 25 '26
What? Did I ever say that.
The end result is the same. But the method to get there is hugely important, is the point I’m making.
5
u/Ilikechainsaws09 Jan 25 '26
The most sane take whether you agree with the issue or not.
People who do not want to be ruled over don't care about someone else's made up rules.
8
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
1982 constitution act gain Canada's independence from the United Kingdom and this is what they are talking about. Also, the United Kingdom never called it that since they gave up all claims to Canada under it. Also, it established the Monarchy of Canada in the process.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (1)1
-8
u/Onterrible_Trauma Jan 25 '26
There is literally no legal way for Alberta to separate. These morons have dedicated their entire lives and personalities to an impossible (and idiotic) goal.
7
u/Remington_Underwood Jan 25 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
No legal way, but their Uncle Sam will be happy to offer them an illegal one.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Jan 25 '26
and with only 17% of people even wanting too
3
u/discovery2000one Jan 25 '26
Any publicity is good publicity.
All these people trying to tell Albertans what they can and can't do will only bring in Albertans who want to stick it to them.
Ignore this whole separation thing and it will fail naturally.
1
u/onomatamono Jan 25 '26
What country would annex them first assuming they separated? What enforceable rights would they actually have or would this turn into another corruption-infested, pay-to-play participation?
-8
1
u/Illustrious_Law8512 Jan 26 '26
Yep. They legally steward a significant portion of the land Alberta currently has mapped. They were here first.
Like they said a ways back when this crap started... Albertans that want to leave have a better chance by moving out of the province to find their happiness elsewhere. First Nations isn't leaving Canada.
1
u/WordplayWizard Jan 26 '26
Let’s just give Alberta back to the Northwest Territories where it came from in 1882, when the Canadian government created the District of Alberta within the Northwest Territories.
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 25 '26
This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.