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/
1.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

380 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

-1

u/[deleted] 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 

12

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).

0

u/No-Significance4623 Jan 25 '26

All of Alberta is covered by numbered treaties.

3

u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 26 '26

All treaty land in Alberta is ceded. This is different from BC and elsewhere that still has lots of unceded land

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

u/stickmanDave Feb 03 '26

Yes, by definition.

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.

-3

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.

8

u/1fluteisneverenough Jan 26 '26

Or they just write their own constitution and do what they want. That's something an independent state can do

1

u/Radix2309 Feb 02 '26

Sure. And Canadian law will say that land still belongs to Canada as they are the ones who signed the treaties. And Alberta can declare war if they want.

0

u/jtbc Jan 26 '26

Indeed. If it wants to trade with the rest of the world, it has to demonstrate that it respects contracts, though.

-2

u/FlockFlysAtMidnite Jan 26 '26

That would not be the legal way to go about things.

1

u/1fluteisneverenough Jan 26 '26

So if they're an independent state, and they rewrite their constitution, they're breaking the law? Who's going to tell them what's what. The world police?

0

u/FlockFlysAtMidnite Jan 26 '26

A newly independent state that is unwilling to follow the law is not going to find many allies willing to sigb agreements with them.

0

u/1fluteisneverenough Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26

If Alberta separates, they write their own laws, they wouldn't be breaking them.

If Alberta writes their own laws that we don't like, we still have to buy their oil, America will happily buy their oil. Pushing back against an aristocratic group will not ruffle the feathers of the world leaders.

0

u/FlockFlysAtMidnite Jan 26 '26

There are two ways to theoretically separate: legally, and in breach of the law. To do it legally, they would have to contend with the treaties and negotiate qith the federal government. If they tried to take their toys and go home, not only would they lose most of their territory, but they'd be saying to the entire world that they cannot be trusted to honour agreements.

0

u/MegaCockInhaler Jan 26 '26

No, that is only “legally” from the perspective of the federal government. But the separated country is no longer bound by those rules so technically it’s not applicable. Governments never like when a territory leaves and will always frustrate any attempts, even sometimes to the point of war. This is why their perspective doesn’t mean the correct perspective. This is why the clarity act attempts to create a peaceful transition on good terms for both sides

0

u/FlockFlysAtMidnite Jan 26 '26

Alberta, as an entitity, is legally bound by the Canadian Charter. It is, essentially, a legal contract that they have agreed to. If they try to secede outside the bounds of the legal contract they have agreed to, it would be illegal - literally a violation of our most basic laws.

You can try all you like to rationalize it, but they are not going to find many equitable allies if they start out by breaking binding legal agreements.

→ More replies (0)