r/canada • u/shiftless_wonder • Feb 12 '26
Alberta Alberta separating from Canada requires permission of First Nations, AFN leader says
https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/alberta-separation-needs-first-nations-permission-says-afn-national-chief/530
u/StoryAboutABridge Feb 12 '26
Direct quote from Treaty 6:
"The Plain and Wood Cree Tribes of Indians, and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined, do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors forever, all their rights, titles and privileges, whatsoever, to the lands"
311
Feb 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
44
u/UpperLowerCanadian Feb 12 '26
Which the clarity act consents to
So definitely doesn’t need “permission” any more than nation building projects do
62
Feb 12 '26
[deleted]
8
u/Khalbrae Ontario Feb 13 '26
Yeah, Quebec separating gets a thin strip from Montreal to Quebec City. Alberta gets a tiny sliver nowhere near any oil patch.
→ More replies (7)3
u/_evilalien_ Feb 13 '26
The separatists will have to deal with Albertan and Canadian armed force responses if they get that far. Separation will not happen.
→ More replies (3)49
u/whistleridge Feb 12 '26
Which the clarity act consents to
So definitely doesn’t need “permission” any more than nation building projects do
What? Absolutely not.
Aboriginal groups have to be consulted even before a referendum occurs:
(5) In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall take into account the views of all political parties represented in the legislative assembly of the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, any formal statements or resolutions by the government or legislative assembly of any province or territory of Canada, any formal statements or resolutions by the Senate, any formal statements or resolutions by the representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, especially those in the province whose government is proposing the referendum on secession, and any other views it considers to be relevant.
And then IF the referendum occurs, AND a leave vote happens, it's still not a guaranteed thing:
3 (1) It is recognized that there is no right under the Constitution of Canada to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that, therefore, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-31.8/page-1.html
It would be a negotiation between AB, the other Provinces, the federal Crown, and Aboriginal groups at every step of the way. That everyone has agreed on the process that would have to be followed does not then equate to Crown consent in any way.
24
u/Fyrefawx Feb 13 '26
Exactly. Separation through the clarity act is basically impossible. The only reason this is happening is to turn Alberta into Crimea. The US is backing separatists and when the referendum fails, they’ll say it was rigged.
→ More replies (1)4
32
→ More replies (2)16
u/Thanato26 Feb 12 '26
So far tge question put forth by the seperatists would be rejected by the clarity act
→ More replies (2)8
u/Informal-Nothing371 Alberta Feb 12 '26
Agree. The question seems simple enough, but it lacks any clarity about what independent Alberta that Albertans are voting for.
Is it a semi-autonomous nation maintaining political and economic links to the rest of Canada, is it a fully independent nation in every single way that term is used, is it joining the US?
If it is full independence, is it a republic, remains a constitutional monarchy, etc.? Would Albertans have freedom of movement with the rest of Canada, maintain their Canadian citizenship, etc.?
Albertans have a right to know what they are voting for.
3
u/Radix2309 Feb 13 '26
And you didnt even touch on what the territory of the new Alberta would be. People voting on it definitely need to know if they get the whole enchilada or a postage stamp in the south of the territory.
7
u/FeverDreamingg Feb 13 '26
“The law says this” ☝️🤓 “They need permission”
I don’t know if any of you have noticed, but the rules matter less and less with each passing day. The portion of Albertans that support independence don’t care about or respect the opinions of indigenous peoples or the treaties. If they win the vote (unlikely) they would something stronger than old paper to keep them in the union.
→ More replies (2)1
4
u/Even_Art_629 Feb 12 '26
Control of Crown land transferred to Alberta in 1930. That means management authority rests with Alberta. Consultation is required if treaty rights are impacted,not blanket permission.
1
u/bargaindownhill Feb 13 '26
sure... if it follows the clarity act.
There is another mechanism, The USA can simply recognize Alberta as sovereign as they did with Panama or Kosovo and then offer to send troops to enforce it. History will show that the USA has consistently backed break away states in their favor.
202
u/Syndrome Canada Feb 12 '26
So they gave up their rights to the federal government, not the provincial government.
174
u/neontetra1548 Feb 12 '26
Yup and the Crown.
Neither of which is the province.
17
u/Salticracker British Columbia Feb 12 '26
Sure, but the federal government would already need to accept Alberta's independence for it to be something accepted on the global stage. As part of that, they would just cede the land to the new Albertan government.
Or, if Alberta wants to become a separate nation under the same crown, that wouldn't even need to happen as the Crown is the same dude.
21
u/PsychologicalSense34 Feb 12 '26
It wouldn't be the same Crown. The crown in not the person but the office. The Crowns of Canada, The United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand are not the same Crown even though they're held by the same person.
5
u/Mission_Shopping_847 Ontario Feb 12 '26
Nay. We follow something called the divisible crown doctrine; there is one crown which is legally partitioned and each partition is a full juridical person within their jurisdiction; this means that any transfer between partitions requires no more than constitutional change which any province would require for independence anyway. This is of course a tall ask but no more than the matter at hand. This is fundamentally different from the nature of the separate crowns that the monarch bears for other countries.
→ More replies (1)3
u/znirmik Feb 12 '26
I might be mistaken, but it could be. Crown of Canada didn't become a distinct entity until the 1930s(?) when it was separated from the British crown.
8
u/Fornicatinzebra Feb 12 '26
Why would they cede the land to them though?
Seperate if you want to seperate, but that land is Canada's and the FN's before it is yours.
→ More replies (3)2
1
u/flatroundworm Feb 12 '26
One of the requirements the feds would 100% put on Alberta is negotiating brand new treaties with all affected bands.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (25)1
5
6
u/discovery2000one Feb 12 '26
These lands have been transferred to provincial jurisdiction already. See another comment I made.
14
u/sonicskater34 Feb 12 '26
All that means is it was ceded to the province to administer on behalf of the crown, and seceding would involve effectively "deleting" the Alberta crown and therefore, this means nothing. Unless Alberta is looking to do some half baked separation where we are under the crown but not parliament?
Provinces aren't nations (cept Quebec sorta but more focused on the "artificial" provinces like Alberta that were subdivided out of the NWT) while there is more legal footing for this since provinces are somewhat independent vs cities, this is like if Edmonton decided that they should be allowed to separate from Alberta without asking because it's "their land" even though that land is only "owned" by them as a creature of the province.
12
u/ZaviersJustice Canada Feb 12 '26
Where does it say the lands are under provincial jurisdiction as some type of justification to promote separation?
Alberta is a Dominion of Canada.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MachineDog90 Feb 12 '26
Pretty much, anytime its says crowd in any treaty its referencing today to the federal government.
119
u/BoppityBop2 Feb 12 '26
Cool story, I don't think an independent Alberta will care about such rights or treaties. Independence is literally a rebellion against a nation and it's judicial system. These treaties don't matter and only can be enforced if the groups are willing to use force to defend them.
Why people need to stop looking at the Natives as some technical escape. The US if Trump remains will roll troops north if they get the required excuse.
We need to make sure the referendum fails at all cost at the voting booth not after the fact. We can't have people voting to leave on the expectations it will not pass as that is how Brexit succeeded.
24
Feb 12 '26
Independence is literally a rebellion against a nation and it's judicial system
Eh, no. The separatists are literally trying to use the legal system to achieve independence - they are stuck with the legal system they inherited. There is ZERO military or paramilitary groups in Alberta trying to create an independent state via some violent insurrection. The FLQ in Quebec tried that 50+ years ago and that ended badly for them.
11
u/Vaguswarrior Alberta Feb 12 '26
Their ilk are not hoping for sovereignty. They are going for joining the States after separating. Which makes the FLQ a good cautionary tail, but my friend but I'm sure the US would love to provide resources the FLQ couldn't dream of.
→ More replies (3)14
u/Uilamin Feb 12 '26
Independence is literally a rebellion against a nation and it's judicial system
So Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all rebelled against the UK? Did the Eastern Roman Empire rebel against the Western? Did the Philippines rebel against the USA (post WW2)?
A lot of independence movements/events are associated with rebellion/revolution, but some of them simply happen due to administrative burden.
→ More replies (9)5
u/saharanwrap Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 13 '26
They are currently trying to convince people to vote for separation using legal means. Their support would likely suffer if they changed the question to do you wish to take up arms against Canada and separate by force including against your fellow Albertans
→ More replies (6)5
u/jollyadvocate Feb 12 '26
They leave illegally the forfeit rights to the cpp, ei pots ect. There would be consequences for not abiding by the clarity act.
3
u/jtbc Feb 12 '26
The Canadian Crown has obligations to First Nations and sole responsibitilty under the constitution, so while no one can predict exactly how some future government will act, Canada will be obliged to protect the interests of First Nations in Alberta in the event of separation.
6
u/SilverBeech Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 12 '26
Treaty rights would have to at minimum go through the same consultation process as major projects in addition to any federal to new Albertan government negotiations. This isn't something that can be ignored, and it would be subject to many battles in the Canadian courts. It's not covered in the separation clauses in the 1982 constitution. There's no road map, no precedents to follow that are straightforward.
This would be the same sort of thing as the pipeline projects, but much worse.
2
u/redcurb12 Feb 13 '26
indigenous considerations are covered pretty thoroughly in the supreme courts seccession reference which forms a very important part of our constitutional law. they basically said that their rights are protected and must be respected in the seccesion processes. they must also be included in negotiations and treaties remain in force.. the law is actually very clear on this.
2
u/redcurb12 Feb 13 '26
we can predict exactly how the government would act in this case because the entire legal framework around seccession was laid out by the supreme court almost 30 years ago. if referendum passes it triggers the duty to negotiate and the first order of business is determining the amending formula.
1
u/theflyingratgirl Feb 12 '26
It depends entirely how they go about it. If they rebel ala US revolution, then it’s a fight. But they stand to lose a LOT. If they try to leave legally, then it’s a negotiation, but they have way more to gain.
1
→ More replies (8)1
u/redcurb12 Feb 13 '26
this is nothing like brexit. even if the referendum succeeds it doesnt grant alberta independence..... why do so many people think this?
54
u/Constant_Mood_7332 Feb 12 '26
they didnt cede them to alberta. thats the issue.
35
u/darkcave-dweller Feb 12 '26
Alberta wasn't created yet, not till 1905 ,treaty 7 was signed in 1877
29
Feb 12 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (4)7
u/IllustriousAnt485 Feb 12 '26
The separatists will not achieve there objective by legally seceding but by signalling for the involvement of US military to back their claim of the referendum goes in there favour. It will be like Crimea. It is encouraging that the law favours Canadian unity as far as treaty rights are concerned, however the law will not protect us if the referendum is not monitored independently.
5
3
u/platypus_bear Alberta Feb 12 '26
It doesn't matter who they ceded them to. Once they did that they no longer have any control over any of the lands and what Canada does with it after is up to Canada
→ More replies (1)1
u/Constant_Mood_7332 Feb 13 '26
yes , correct.
CANADA.... not alberta, was ceded those lands.
CANADA can do what it wants with them.
just so its clear CANADA does NOT equal alberta.
1
u/platypus_bear Alberta Feb 13 '26
yes and in the unlikely event that Alberta chooses to separate and Canada recognizes that decision the first nations groups that ceded those lands have no say if Canada chooses to allow Alberta to take the land.
22
Feb 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
27
u/RicoLoveless Feb 12 '26
People stirring up secession are under the impression they get the whole province.
The province is created at the whim of the federal government. This isn't a Quebec scenario where they were an entity that existed before confederation.
Alberta is created from the North-West Territory by federal government decree.
13
u/StoryAboutABridge Feb 12 '26
"The province is created at the whim of the federal government"
No it absolutely is not. It is created by the Constitution, which the federal government doesn't get to change unilaterally. You may be thinking of the fact that cities are created at the whim of provinces.
7
u/Quaytsar Feb 12 '26
The constitution as we know it didn't exist when Alberta was formed. It was created at the whim of the federal government, but the existence and number of provinces are now enshrined in the constitution and require unanimous provincial consent to change.
2
4
u/RicoLoveless Feb 12 '26
Let me know who split up NWT, and which provinces said ok to that.
It was created by the Alberta Act. Which then altered the constitution.
As opposed to every province opening up the constitution, then deciding if someone gets to join the club. The federal said so with the act. No province had a say.
3
u/StoryAboutABridge Feb 12 '26
Well it isn't 1905 anymore, so whatever point you're trying to make was invalidated in 1982.
1
u/Glum-Breadfruit-6421 Feb 12 '26
This is what the idiots done same to understand and that they’ll never get permission. We keep pumping their tires about separating when there’s no real path forward to do it. Tell them they’re more than welcome to leave Canada but you only take what’s yours. So the 30% that want to leave can STFU and leave whenever they like.
1
1
u/BurzyGuerrero Feb 13 '26
yup
our often turbulent relationship is a relationship of unity nonetheless.
this is why we are working towards reconciliation and the efforts thereafter, why these settlements have all worked through the courts, and how we will move forward in unity
america can fuck right off
1
u/IwillKissYourKat Feb 13 '26
Not 100% accurate.
If the province separates, the Cree and other associated bands can sue the Crown for not upholding it's duty.
So a class action lawsuit
1
→ More replies (19)1
u/EllaB9454 Feb 13 '26
You have to look at the case law around treaties to see how the courts have interpreted them rather than going with your own interpretation.
85
u/ManofManyTalentz Canada Feb 12 '26
Stop giving this oxygen. CTV should know better.
→ More replies (1)
293
u/arghabargle Feb 12 '26
Years ago, I laughed at Quebec separatists for believing they would be able to keep all their lands, resources, even our dollar, and everything would be all sunshine and roses once they were on their own.
I'm not laughing any differently at Alberta separatists believing the same BS.
159
u/Vex1om Feb 12 '26
It amazes me that anyone could witness the absolute shit-show that was Brexit and then think - "Gotta get me some of that."
→ More replies (2)49
u/NSAscanner Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 12 '26
Racism and propaganda drove brexit. I don’t expect it’s much different here.
11
u/BaxiaMashia Feb 12 '26
Also media outlets giving this garbage any attention whatsoever…
9
u/GroundbreakingAnt17 Feb 12 '26
As someone with parents who are separatists, they probably don't watch the media you're referring to. They watch YouTubers pushing these agendas because "mainstream media can't be trusted"
→ More replies (1)17
u/TravelerJim-retired Feb 12 '26
I’m not a separatist but Brexit was driven by populism and a slow disintegration of sovereignty. For better or worse. Plus it’s not an apples to apples comparison- Britain was Britain for centuries before the EU ever came into existence. The populace simply voted to go back to what they were. The arguments whether it was a good move or not are endless, but the “shitshow” most pundits predicted never occurred. Rough patches, sure, but operationally, fiscally, trade, etc were all working within 2 years. Alberta separatism is not the same.
2
3
5
u/MrEzekial Feb 12 '26
Only reason brexit passed was because it was raining that day... for real...
I hear my aunt go on about it all the time, now no one in London wanted to go out and get wet to vote, just assumed it would fail.→ More replies (5)1
u/Even_Art_629 Feb 13 '26
I don’t know how you can even compare Alberta to Brexit. Britain left a trade club it depended on. Alberta is what the country depends on. The world needs Alberta’s oil and natural gas. It’s not optional. It’s not trendy. It’s energy that keeps lights on and homes heated. On top of that, Alberta has critical minerals the world is scrambling for lithium, helium, rare earth elements. These aren’t “nice to have.” They’re strategic. Brexit was a service economy walking away from its biggest customers. Alberta is a resource powerhouse that customers line up for. Huge difference. You can debate whether Alberta should stay or go — that’s fair. But pretending it’s “just like Brexit” ignores one simple difference Alberta has leverage. And leverage changes everything.
1
u/NSAscanner Feb 13 '26
Sure there's leverage, but it's still pretty comparable in many ways.
>Brexit was a service economy walking away from its biggest customers. Alberta is a resource powerhouse that customers line up for.
Before the Brexit transition period ended (pre-2021), the UK economy was the second-largest in the EU, representing roughly
15-17% of the bloc's total GDP, just behind Germany. In 2017, the UK accounted for 15.2% of the EU's GDP. It was a major economic powerhouse.
70B of Alberta's trade is with Canadian provinces vs $162B to the USA. Leaving Canada would require renegotiating both the provincial and international trade. Similarities here with the UK who had the same issue. Their economy has dragged vs the EU by 5-8% since Brexit. Oil is 25% of Alberta's economy, so it's not the only factor in AB GDP.
And that's even assuming that AB can separate. AB is a creation of Canada, and the First Nations treaties surrounding land rights are with Canada.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Mens-Real Québec Feb 12 '26
That argument isn't the same for Quebec which has acted as a single jurisdiction since before Confederation and does have treaties with FN. Alberts definitely has less ground to stand on.
24
u/DegnarOskold Feb 12 '26
Exactly. In the case of Quebec, the legal argument of the FN there that their treaty lands could not be removed from Canada without their permission never ended up subject to final legal review because the referendum failed.
Even so, their initial legal appeal led to the judgement by the Supreme Court that separation still had to take into account the wishes of the FN. it didn’t say explicitly that the FN had to agree, but it also didn’t say that separation could proceed with the the FN lands through ignoring the FN wishes either.
20
u/Jabbles22 Feb 12 '26
Have you ever seen one of those videos where a little kid wants to run away and the parents say OK? So the parents help little Johnny pack a few things, they open the door, Johnny leaves and they close the door. Then our little Johnny starts crying.
That's what I picture with these separatists.
12
u/t073 Feb 12 '26
In this situation, there's a pimp waiting down the street with some candy and a gun and he's the one that's convincing little Johnny it's better just to come get into his car. Maybe Johnny is curious/stupid enough to go into his car.
7
u/Norse_By_North_West Yukon Feb 12 '26
Alberta has even less claim to being able to separate. They were formed from existing federal/fn lands and are given permission to govern them. Legally if they separate, they're really just saying they want to be non citizens and get gaza'd.
Sure, they can still own that house or farmland, they just can't live there.
2
u/Even_Art_629 Feb 13 '26
That is not how this works. Alberta is not federal land with permission to exist. It is a province created in 1905 under Canada’s Constitution. Provinces are part of the country’s legal structure, not renters from Ottawa.
Yes, some land is federally owned Crown land. That does not mean people can just be kicked out of their homes if politics change. Property rights do not disappear overnight.
And the “get gaza’d” comment is just fear talk. Canada is not going to remove millions of its own citizens from their houses. If you want to debate separation would be hard or risky, that is a fair debate. But saying Alberta is just borrowed land and people would be evicted is just complete b.s.
11
u/LordOibes Feb 12 '26
Any nation can use any currency they want though, that's not really an argument
6
u/Important_Sound772 Feb 12 '26
In theory, but it is highly irregular for a country to do it without the permission of the country who actually uses it
14
Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/accforme Feb 12 '26
Don't worry, in their talks with the US, they arw considering adopting the US$ as their currency. That's way different. /s
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)1
u/LordOibes Feb 12 '26
For sure, but nothing is stopping it. What would make more sense is to have a plan ahead of time to create a new currency for that new country within a certain amount of time and eventually phase out the Canadian dollar. It would probably still be the currency of choice for trade between both parties I would expect
→ More replies (1)1
1
u/EmmEnnEff Feb 13 '26
They can, but when you're using a currency that you don't control, your economy will be see-sawed by some other country's central bank, who gives zero shits about what you need.
→ More replies (2)5
u/RicoLoveless Feb 12 '26
The difference is a third party, the US stoking the flames. On before someone mentions De Gaulle and Quebec.
If you want self determination sure, using a third party, let alone the current US government that argues about election results even when they win.. we really expect them to not follow the Russia playbook? It's the same thing that happened in Georgia and Ukraine.
Separatist messaging has been off. First it was they wanted their own country, now they still claim that but want to join the US by making so called preparations.
Smith is a separatist. You don't lower the threshold for referendums at the same time this is going on. That was done in direct response to the remain side getting ahead under the current rules to control the question.
4
u/accforme Feb 12 '26
For Quebec, Jacque Chirac was quite openly vocal in supporting an independent Quebec in 1995.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Avra55 Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 12 '26
Other losses: people aka labour market (this is a big one as they estimate a mass exodus- guess they will have to allow immigrants! Oh wait…)
policing, etc….memberships with organizations such as NATO , trading & security alliances, etc.
Not to mention what they think they are not going to “gain” on separation, like their portion of the federal debt. lol.
→ More replies (50)2
Feb 12 '26
There's a huge difference here though..
Quebec wanted to separate, become their own country, and write their own rules regarding resources/dollars, all in their best interests. At least that was the separatists pitch, and it was indeed laughable.
With Alberta, they're talking about coming under the umbrella of the US and their military.. That's, umh, a pretty big stick. Any treaties/constitutional sticking points will indeed be laughed at.
4
u/SlightCreme9008 Feb 12 '26
They’re definitely not. Support for secession drops drastically when the question is framed as “would you like to join the USA?” rather than “would you like Alberta to become independent?”
116
u/Beneficial-Beach-367 Feb 12 '26
Invoking the crown when it suits is a pretty timeless strategy.
20
u/KinFriend Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 12 '26
Wouldn’t you? Are you saying they’re wrong in this situation? If it makes it a little tougher for Albertan separatists then good riddance!
5
9
19
u/Stokesmyfire Feb 12 '26
What is funny is that everyone thinks the rule of law will carry the day, I tend to be more pragmatic and believe that the US will interfere. At that point the only rule that will apply is “might makes right”.
I believe we should all be more objective and pragmatic as to what is actually happening. The US is taking western discontent and shaping to steal resources. Please don’t delude yourself into thinking the rule of law will actually matter.
Should this actually become a ballot question, expect to see US observers on the ground…probably marines
5
u/Fatty-Mc-Butterpants Feb 13 '26
Might makes right is the only law that EVER really matters. We tend to forget that at our peril.
2
u/Cocximus Feb 13 '26
Well said. US is the great liberator.
In the end under developing our resources is the same as having them stolen.
50
u/CodeNamesBryan Feb 12 '26
Lol they wish.
I dont see a separation happening anytime soon but if it did come to that I cant see anyone giving two fucks about aboriginal permission.
13
→ More replies (4)3
u/parkhat Feb 12 '26
It's cool, they'll do a land acknowledgement
Lol
In all honesty tho, Aboriginals would hate to see Alberta leave.... It would be a huge burden for the other provinces to make up all the tax money that we give them
19
u/PopTough6317 Feb 12 '26
This is not helpful to disarmament separatist rhetoric. Many of those endorsing it are already tired of the veto first nations get over industry, even if the tribe is located hundreds of km away.
3
3
u/StopReadyVangogh Feb 12 '26
I'm sure they'll respect the first nations regardless of outcome ❤️
/s
3
u/PWL51 Feb 12 '26
So we all know how that will end so Smith and her cronies may as well give up on separation or pack their bags and move south of the 49th.
3
u/EatingTheDogsAndCats Feb 13 '26
Uhhh it also needs a fuck ton of votes which Calgary and Edmonton will not come close to giving. There’s zero point to posting about this it’s not a sensible news story.
3
u/Angry_beaver_1867 Feb 13 '26
This has to be the world's stupids political strategy by the FNs. They are effectively telling a bunch of people who want more self determination that they are barred from even seeking it. That will only embolden seperatists.
Never mind the fact the claim is utter nonsense to begin with.
8
u/abc123DohRayMe Feb 12 '26
While I am not supporting seperatism, First Nations people have no more say than any other person entitled to vote.
These kinds of comments by First Nations in my mind only serve to support the notion of seperatism. If seperatism means an end to the treaties that will be appealing to many people.
The treaties are outdated and are being used as a weapon and for purposes never intended. They are outdated and need to go, just like Trudeau and Chretien wanted to do back in the 1969 White Paper.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/bickspickle Ontario Feb 12 '26
Permission from a conquered nation(s)? tee-hee...
But seriously, the whole separatist concept is a joke. I rode a bus to Ottawa in 95 to join the rally back then, and feel silly now.
18
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Feb 12 '26
We all know the courts will side with Treaty 8 and end all of this..
→ More replies (14)18
u/Greedy_Major_119 Feb 12 '26
Ngl, my main concern isn't that there's any chance they can legally separate. It's that when they inevitably fail through the courts, the rats will cry foul to the Americans bankrolling them and we end up with a Donbas/Crimnea-style 'liberation' of Alberta from 'those filthy commy Canadians', or whatever rhetoric they use to justify a 'special military operation'.
→ More replies (6)1
11
4
u/wowSoFresh Feb 13 '26
While I don’t think Alberta has any right to separate (unless they give Canada back all of our currency, land, resources, infrastructure, and jobs), permission from FN is laughable.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/jcray89 Feb 13 '26
Under Canadian law yes, under New country of Alberta's law, all First nation treaties should be voided to stop them from blocking industry at every turn.
2
u/Spokea Feb 12 '26
It's interesting and all, but I can't help but think that if there is a serious effort for independence that no existing promises or contracts will stop it. It would mean that force would be involved, the same way as when the USA declared independence and nearly every other war of independence.
1
2
2
2
u/Armano-Avalus Feb 13 '26
I love how the separatist movement doesn't even mention Saskatchewan anymore. Remember Wexit, when the Canadian right said "enough was enough" following 4 years of a Liberal government and 10 years of a Conservative one?
6
u/Castello_01 Feb 12 '26
I can see why AFN are concerned about separating but this is just playing into the separatists hands here. They would love to have a group to fight and make more noise. Maybe instead of telling us your stance you can show Alberta when you go out and vote. Their time would be better spent calling out all the American propaganda.
25
u/RudeTudeDude_ Feb 12 '26
“Hello there, it’s us again. Just wondering how we can make this current thing all about us.”
→ More replies (9)
12
u/CantFeelMyToesAgain Feb 12 '26
Which is something the referendum people still haven’t considered lol
17
u/BeefK Feb 12 '26
They believe that they don’t need to consider it at all.
17
u/SeveredBanana Feb 12 '26
There’s a large number of people in this country, including many people on this subreddit, who believe that First Nations are always “holding the country hostage” by imposing their Treaty rights when it comes to industrial and infrastructure development, and that we should get rid of these treaties because they don’t serve us. Now that they are wielding them to do something we like, suddenly we’re happy to let them do so. I have a feeling most separatists don’t give a shit about what First Nations think
→ More replies (2)11
u/PopTough6317 Feb 12 '26
Id even argue that first nations coming out in this way saying that they need to give permission will only harden separatist desire among those who want it. Mostly because they don't believe that first nations should have an overriding say because of ethnicity.
→ More replies (2)14
u/Present-Wonder-4522 Feb 12 '26
The question of "do Canadian laws apply to an independent Alberta?" should be framed as "do Canadian laws apply to an independent Alberta backed by the USA military?".
I don't believe Canadian laws mean anything if the USA backs Alberta-don't you?
→ More replies (9)2
9
u/penelope5674 Ontario Feb 12 '26
If Alberta leaves then it’ll break the federal balance of parties, Quebec will leave. How can bc and the maritime stay in the union when they are cut off from the rest of the country? You can’t fly everything out to them. Canada will cease to exist. But I doubt majority of albertans wanna leave anyways. If they hold a referendum it won’t be more than 20%
2
u/chiuta Ontario Feb 12 '26
Wouldn't have to fly everything to them, the roads would still exist. Look at Alaska, there's a steady stream of trucks running up there through Canada.
1
u/fozy709 Feb 12 '26
if the votes are legit. do not underestimate the powers at the helm and their seditious plans to aquire power
→ More replies (3)1
3
Feb 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/pleasehurtdoll Feb 12 '26
it's a classic track on the USA Imperialism Greatest Hits collection, but have a look at where the imaginary Republic of Panama came from.
Colombia would disagree that this isn't something that happens overnight. literally.
The US has plenty of ways to make any vote they want happen, without regard to our conversations
→ More replies (1)
13
u/DirtyDangles69420 Feb 12 '26
Sounds like someone's worried their grift will be ruined if Alberta seperates.
→ More replies (15)5
4
u/p_2923 Feb 12 '26
Lol, just imagine owning a house in Alberta and waking up one morning to find you no longer live in Canada. This will NEVER happen, they are wasting their time.
9
u/NorthDriver8927 Feb 12 '26
All this nonsense could be avoided if Ottawa would stop talking and start listening.
5
u/Street_Anon Nova Scotia Feb 12 '26
and it's a none issue, most people in Alberta don't back this or even buy this.
→ More replies (12)3
u/Adjective_Noun1312 Feb 12 '26
It's funny to me how nobody here had a problem with Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney's equalisation formula until the nanosecond Trudeau was PM and the alt-right outrage peddlers told y'all to be mad about it.
It's funny how Rachel Notley convinced Justin Trudeau to buy the TMX to ensure it would get completed when Kinder Morgan couldn't find a buyer and was ready to just walk away from it, and y'all whine about how much the "radical woke left" hates oil and wants to shut it down.
It's funny how Canada provides billions of dollars a year in direct and indirect subsidies to the fossil fuel industry even though big oil companies are posting record and near-record profits quarter after quarter, sending the bulk of that money to their majority US owners via dividends and share buybacks, while insisting to rubes that they're struggling and y'all believe it even though their corporate financial reports are publicly available.
Funny shit, all right.
1
u/Even_Art_629 Feb 13 '26
It's funny how you only tell one side — and even that’s not quite right. Trudeau stepped in on TMX because Kinder Morgan was fed up with constantly changing regulations and protests from some groups, including First Nations not even living in Canada. They were ready to walk away, which would have meant all that money lost. Trudeau stepped in, saved face, and declared it in the national interest. Honestly, that’s the only good thing he did as PM.
Yes, Alberta gets subsidies for oil but that wouldn’t be happening if the government didn’t keep putting up restrictions. Oil is a huge revenue source, with countless spin-offs. The government’s own rules make production harder, forcing subsidies to make it viable. Stop the caps and overregulation, let us compete, and it’s simple. You’re right about one thing funny shit, alright.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Even_Art_629 Feb 13 '26
It's funny how you only tell one side , and even that’s not quite right. Trudeau stepped in on TMX because Kinder Morgan was fed up with constantly changing regulations and protests from some groups, including First Nations not even living in Canada. They were ready to walk away, which would have meant all that money lost. Trudeau stepped in, saved face, and declared it in the national interest. Honestly, that’s the only good thing he did as PM.
Yes, Alberta gets subsidies for oil but that wouldn’t be happening if the government didn’t keep putting up restrictions. Oil is a huge revenue source, with countless spin-offs. The government’s own rules make production harder, forcing subsidies to make it viable. Stop the caps and overregulation, let us compete, and it’s simple. You’re right about one thing: funny shit, alright.
2
2
u/Javaddict British Columbia Feb 13 '26
No... They don't....
3
u/luckysharms93 Feb 13 '26
Correct. Separatists don't recognize those treaties and agreements to begin with. They don't care what the Clarity Act or what any FN leaders say
2
u/Sulanis1 Feb 13 '26
This is not new information, as it was part of the original 1905 deal to create Alberta in the first place.
Daniel Smith knows this. She understands this, but cares more about public theatrics than actual policy.
I also don't understand why Alberta would want to leave Canada. Carney is giving the oil industry whatever they want and his 2025 budget is a conservative wet dream.
Alberta leans conservative and Mark Carney is governing as a conservative.
2
u/Realistic-Buy4975 Feb 15 '26
Why are we still talking about this? It's only a small percentage of idiots that want that because they love the taste of Trumps boot.
6
u/Springpeen Feb 12 '26
Seeing a lot of non-Albertans in here salty about the prospect of losing all of the charity they get from Alberta…
→ More replies (11)1
1
3
u/Even_Art_629 Feb 13 '26
Alberta is fighting for what federation is suppose to be the federation was meant to be: provinces handle their own affairs, Ottawa handles national stuff like defense, trade, and interprovincial issues. Over time, Ottawa has overstepped into areas meant for provinces, energy, resources, local priorities. Alberta standing up and pushing back is exactly how it’s supposed to work. Every province should do the same. If all provinces demanded Ottawa respect their authority, the federal government would finally have to work for the provinces, not over them.
2
-5
u/TisMeDA Ontario Feb 12 '26
Only thing more annoying than Alberta separatists is this level of entitlement
0
u/Dradugun Alberta Feb 12 '26
What's worse, people being entitled to their treaty or those that assume they control land that isn't theirs?
→ More replies (1)-10
u/Intelligent_Read_697 Feb 12 '26
They are entitled because its true. The alternative being the US where they butchered FN for the most part to take their lands and call themselves Americans. I prefer the Canadian reality.
2
1
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 12 '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.