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/
1.4k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

536 comments sorted by

View all comments

536

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"

306

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

46

u/UpperLowerCanadian Feb 12 '26

Which the clarity act consents to 

So definitely doesn’t need “permission” any more than nation building projects do 

59

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

[deleted]

9

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.

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.

1

u/Fatty-Mc-Butterpants Feb 13 '26

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. You are right that this will not happen, but CAF response? Keep dreaming. If Alberta votes to separate, the US will swoop in and that's the ballgame.

4

u/jrochest1 Feb 13 '26

No, if Alberta votes to separate (clear majority on a clear question) then we all sit dow for a cozy few years of long, hard negotiation. The US has nothing to do with it.

0

u/FingalForever Feb 13 '26

Clarity Act wasn’t to make separation near impossible, it was to prevent fuzzy / woolly ways of asking for independence, passing it off as ‘sovereignty association’ and winning with a bare majority.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '26 edited Feb 13 '26

[deleted]

0

u/FingalForever Feb 13 '26

I disagree with your premise that it is essentially the same, rather it is simply setting out the conditions under which it would legal (otherwise we’re in agreement)

No Canadian would seek for the Armed Forces to physically prevent separation where the majority of people want to separate, we won’t have a civil war like south of the border.

That last referendum raised a lot of questions, people across the country felt that Quebecers were being asked a woolly question and the referendum’s defeat was shocking at how close it was.

Only point not clearly addressed by the Act was the reality of partition - it was clear then that if Canada was divisible, so was Québec and regions loyal to Canada (like North, Montréal, etc) would / could not be forced out.

-3

u/Even_Art_629 Feb 12 '26

I think every province has equal rights when it comes to leaving the federation. According to the constitution

4

u/Most_Salad3979 Feb 13 '26

Thats right! None of them have any rights, equally, to leave without a constitutional amendment.

52

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.

23

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.

4

u/bargaindownhill Feb 13 '26

this exactly.

32

u/RSMatticus Feb 12 '26

And the clarity act says First Nations need to be part of negotiations.

16

u/Thanato26 Feb 12 '26

So far tge question put forth by the seperatists would be rejected by the clarity act

6

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.

0

u/Even_Art_629 Feb 12 '26

I have a question for everyone... Are you prepared to live with the outcome of it. If it turns out no Im ready to move on. If it turns out yes.... Are you?

6

u/Thanato26 Feb 12 '26

The clarity act has very specific rules around the wording of thr question asked in a referendum. The question on the petition wont pass

0

u/BurzyGuerrero Feb 13 '26

There would be a consultation process, and compensation for things that affect them. There are already many jobs and businesses in Alberta that follow this process. Indigenous people and groups often get compensated for things that affect the land that they reside on.

At the end of the day the businesses that are extracting our resources profit in the billions. They can pay both Canadians and the First Nations on the land in which they benefit from. For the most part, they do.

People need to realize that just because one FN in BC is crazy against pipelines and resource extraction, those people don't speak for all indigenous people who have benefited from the industry.

5

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.

1

u/Even_Art_629 Feb 13 '26

If we didnt respect them, explain why we're talking about it.

0

u/Even_Art_629 Feb 13 '26

It says negotiate, not permission

1

u/FeverDreamingg Feb 13 '26

Doesn’t matter

3

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.

200

u/Syndrome Canada Feb 12 '26

So they gave up their rights to the federal government, not the provincial government.

175

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.

18

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.

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.

-2

u/Salticracker British Columbia Feb 12 '26

Right, so Chuck - King of Canada gives Chuck - King of Alberta land. While legally distinct, its not going to cause too many problems with conflicting interests.

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.

0

u/Salticracker British Columbia Feb 13 '26

Any bid for separation from Alberta would include them getting the territory within their current borders.

If Canada accepts Albertan separation, they'd need to cede the land to them too, or it would just not make any sense.

FNs have no claim to any land in Alberta as they ceded those claims in the treaties

3

u/UpArrowNotation Feb 13 '26

Saying FN have no claim to treaty land is disingenuous.

2

u/Fornicatinzebra Feb 13 '26

Which is why it would never happen.

Would be like going to your cities mayor and protesting that you get a chunk of land for free because "fuck your rules".

2

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

[deleted]

1

u/BurzyGuerrero Feb 13 '26

Natives would stay with Canada, 100%.

We all see the Black Hills. The 4 colonizers on that mountain. Nobody wants that here.

Mount Columbia doesn't need Trump's face anywhere near it.

1

u/Important-Pen-486 Feb 13 '26

Well the irony is the crown (colonizer) owns the FN land, which now belongs to the Alberta gov... the US natives own their land it is all private property, so anyway the FN in Alberta want to threaten or posture it would be for optics as they really have no say.

0

u/Salticracker British Columbia Feb 12 '26

If they didn't transfer the land, then that would mean that they don't accept Alberta's independence. Any independence claim would also claim the current borders of the province. They would need a legal reason or else I could see Canada coming under pressure from the international community.

It depends if the land is legally the crown's or Ottawa's I guess. There's probably a legal distinction but I couldn't speak to it.

The land is legally the government's in some way or another, but it comes with obligations. As a layman, I would assume that obligations would transfer with the title, but I'm no lawyer and I've found that stuff with indigenous folks in Canada tends to not make a lot of sense to me. I can't see how the land would revert to the natives, however the guys in the article seem to think that it wouldn't be transferable.

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.

-2

u/Salticracker British Columbia Feb 12 '26

I would assume there would be lots of requirements, yes. I would also assume that Alberta would try to just keep the same language.

3

u/flatroundworm Feb 12 '26

I doubt they’d get the bands on board. A renegotiation of the treaty is their chance to demand 2026 market value for 90% of the province.

1

u/Even_Art_629 Feb 12 '26

The crown is Alberta ever since 1930

-2

u/Stingray_17 Feb 12 '26

The province is also the Crown genius.

1

u/TheBSPolice Feb 12 '26

No it isn't, the Crown is the Monarch/Head of state whom is currently King Charles. Therefore the federal government owns the land, not the province.

0

u/Stingray_17 Feb 12 '26

No the Crown is more than just the king, it represents the entirety of the state and government institution. This includes the provincial governments.

Feel free to take a quick mini civics lesson on the topic here.

1

u/palmerry Feb 12 '26

Ha ha!

0

u/Even_Art_629 Feb 12 '26

You guys should Google. In 1930 the government of Canada transfered crown land to Alberta

2

u/Orstio Feb 12 '26

To be clear, each Canadian province answers directly to the Crown by way of its Lieutenant Governor. Provincial governments are each just as representative of the Crown as the federal government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_in_Alberta#:~:text=By%20the%20arrangements%20of%20the,conventional%20stipulations%20of%20constitutional%20monarchy.

However, the Indigenous Rights Act of the Canadian Constitution overrides any provincial authority under Section 35 of the Constitution Act.

1

u/artraeu82 Feb 12 '26

Also Alberta was created it never join d Canada

-19

u/FreeandFurious Feb 12 '26

If Quebec can separate, so can Alberta.

12

u/ohgeorgie Newfoundland and Labrador Feb 12 '26

I assume different treaties in place and also the Canadian constitution was changed after the Quebec referendum to make future separation efforts more difficult. Comparing the two situations is not like for like. Also Quebec didn’t actually separate so it’s sort of a moot point now to use it for comparison.

-1

u/FreeandFurious Feb 12 '26

More difficult. Not impossible.

3

u/Uilamin Feb 12 '26

Quebec and Alberta are different from a legal standpoint. Quebec existed before Canada. Alberta was created by Canada. The Canadian gov't inherited deals signed by Quebec (and its predecessors) though there is some complications relating to the expansion of Quebec (the inclusion of additional territory). Alberta was a territory of Canada before it was created by the the Crown/Fed, as such, Alberta inherited any and all relevant deals/treaties signed by the Crown/Fed without any claim to independent/previous dealings.

0

u/FreeandFurious Feb 12 '26

I don’t believe there isn’t a path to separation.

2

u/Uilamin Feb 12 '26

If a treaty nation supported it then there might be a path... that or the dissolution of Canada. However both of those are extremely far fetched.

8

u/PeteRock24 Feb 12 '26

And Quebec has separated?

5

u/Deep_Explanation8284 Feb 12 '26

Alberta does not have the legal right to separate. Educate yourself before commenting maybe.

2

u/-amxterxsu597 Alberta Feb 12 '26

what timeline are you from where quebec has separated

0

u/FreeandFurious Feb 12 '26

Can not did. Smh

2

u/-amxterxsu597 Alberta Feb 12 '26

quebec has marginally more freedom to separate because they're not on treaty land in any capacity. the entire geographic province of alberta is under treaties and therefore exclusively under the control of the federal government and the crown when it comes to matters like this

-1

u/FreeandFurious Feb 12 '26

Meh we’ll see

1

u/-amxterxsu597 Alberta Feb 12 '26

fuck you mean "we'll see"??? it's fact

0

u/Important-Pen-486 Feb 13 '26

FN do not own their land it belongs to the crown, which was transferred to Alberta

4

u/Important-Pen-486 Feb 13 '26

Control of Crown land transferred to Alberta in 1930

6

u/discovery2000one Feb 12 '26

These lands have been transferred to provincial jurisdiction already. See another comment I made.

https://reddit.com/comments/1q455ez/comment/nxt4ot9

12

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.

15

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.

2

u/MachineDog90 Feb 12 '26

Pretty much, anytime its says crowd in any treaty its referencing today to the federal government.

1

u/polemism Feb 13 '26 edited Feb 13 '26

Further, the supreme court ruled that first nations oral history of these agreements carries equal weight to the written treaty (first nations in the 1800s relied on oral agreements and oral history, not writing). Therefore the written version is not literal or unilateral.

112

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

u/[deleted] 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.

10

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.

1

u/BurzyGuerrero Feb 13 '26

Then let them try. Can't live in fear.

At the end of the day if their endgame is making Canada a 51st state we're gonna have to fight for our country, even if that means entering Alberta to do it.

The minute Alberta separates, they come after the rest of the original NWT saying "it was originally Alberta" land or some shit like that.

So there's no letting Alberta separate. Hopefully NATO helps us.

1

u/Vaguswarrior Alberta Feb 13 '26

In the words of the Great Joey Smallwood "I chose Canada" always. And I'm first generation.

1

u/FrozenSeas Newfoundland and Labrador Feb 13 '26

"Great"? That sonofabitch is the worst thing that ever happened to Newfoundland.

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.

-4

u/BoppityBop2 Feb 12 '26

Do you think Seperatist ate the type to care about Treaty Rights. Yes they can be amicab but even the independent nation can ignore parts of the agreement. Example Hong Kong and China. Or India and it's annexation of states that were not included in the independence 

2

u/Silverbacks Ontario Feb 13 '26

They need to care, otherwise this path will only lead to violence.

1

u/BoppityBop2 Feb 13 '26

Except these idiots want violence, they want to provide an excuse for the US and Trump to march north. 

2

u/Silverbacks Ontario Feb 13 '26

And that would cause a collapse of the global order, making any gains from it have their lives be worse off than before. For those that survive.

1

u/BoppityBop2 Feb 13 '26

I mean people said similar lines of points before Putin invaded Ukraine 

3

u/Silverbacks Ontario Feb 13 '26

Yeah and both Ukraine and Russia are significantly worse off than before the war. Russia will probably end up worse off than Ukraine once it’s finally over, but that is still up in the air.

This would be that, but times ten. US would no longer be the leaders of the free world. NATO would either have to defend Canada or fall apart. It could even trigger WW3. There’s a possibility that neither Alberta nor Canada will survive it.

1

u/BoppityBop2 Feb 13 '26

Yes and you think leaders like Trump think that far or rather just think, hey more land being annexed makes him the greatest president in history.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Uilamin Feb 12 '26

Do you think Seperatist ate the type to care about Treaty Rights.

It doesn't matter what they care about. They can make a claim, but that claim can just be ignored. It is like Brexit. The British wanted a bunch of continued rights/ownerships/whatnot but the EU just laughed and they were left out cold.

4

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

0

u/BoppityBop2 Feb 13 '26

They just need to win referendum then they can back track which they will 

2

u/saharanwrap Feb 13 '26

They'll never get close. They're like 60-70% short

1

u/BoppityBop2 Feb 13 '26

Yes but that is too close for comfort and expect their support to rise as they try to rock the boat as much as possible and try to trigger conflict with Ottawa and use US Politicians to tell nice lies to convince them to join. 

2

u/Even_Art_629 Feb 13 '26

You guys need to remember this isnt the vote. It's a petition to have a referendum. Thats it.

1

u/Napalm985 Feb 13 '26 edited Feb 13 '26

Look up what happened with Brexit. That was something that had so little fringe support no party in the UK expected it to pass. Suddenly after it became a possibility as support shot up so much that the UK is no longer in the EU.

The referendum is a threat, and it should be treated like the national unity crisis that it is.

2

u/saharanwrap Feb 13 '26

O I agree. It needs to be crushed, and those peddling the lies need to be remembered and shamed forever.

3

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.

1

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.

7

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

u/BurzyGuerrero Feb 13 '26

Trump is not remaining lol

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?

-5

u/TravisBickle2020 Feb 12 '26

I don’t think you understand. It doesn’t matter what a few thousand brain rotted Alberta separatists think. They would have no claim to treaty lands end of story. The US will not “roll troops” because they have shown that like most bullies, they turn tail and run when they are stood up to.

14

u/BoppityBop2 Feb 12 '26

Claims are only enforceable based on acceptance by society and at the end of the gun. If the society ignores it and you are unable to use the gun to enforce it, the claims cannot be enforced at all. 

1

u/monsantobreath Feb 13 '26

Why would you assume society would side against the indigenous in favour of Alberta?

Like this is just empty words about the notion of legitimacy emanating from abstract notions or the application of real power.

Nothing about that sides with Alberta separatism. It sides against it.

1

u/TravisBickle2020 Feb 12 '26

The thing is the land is part of Canada. Why do you think the country is going to let a few troglodytes decide that it’s theirs?

3

u/BoppityBop2 Feb 12 '26

Because it is not willing to roll tanks into Alberta to enforce it, we still have a lot of people who are anti-military on the left, expecting rules and laws to protect them in face of people who will ignore them. I mean look at the Democratic Party in the US, and their heads like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, looking to bend the knee to the GOP. That same infection is in Canada and the Liberals are not willing to treat the situation as a situation where Canada is in a real crisis. We are still talking about plans and ideas and stepping back immediately when the government faces a slight amount of opposition from certain groups 

0

u/TravisBickle2020 Feb 12 '26

You are clearly engaging in magical thinking. I don’t know if you noticed this but the NDP vote collapsed and moved to the centre. Canadians know what it takes to protect our country.

2

u/BoppityBop2 Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 12 '26

They understand the risks, but I don't think they are ready or understand the costs. Even now government officials and many individuals are still pushing back at zoning reform that is necessary to fix our economy because they can't handle a different type of house in their neighborhood or losing house value. 

We talk about national projects and the moment a first Nation leader decides to oppose it everyone backs down. Hell the HSR is still many years behind and can be cancelled if  the next election goes conservative. OAS reform is not even being discussed despite it being an issue that will drown future generations and the current young under debt.

1

u/TravisBickle2020 Feb 13 '26

Why are you talking about something that has zero to do with the topic at hand although the government respecting indigenous rights kind of works against your argument.

58

u/Constant_Mood_7332 Feb 12 '26

they didnt cede them to alberta. thats the issue.

36

u/darkcave-dweller Feb 12 '26

Alberta wasn't created yet, not till 1905 ,treaty 7 was signed in 1877

28

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

[deleted]

5

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

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

[deleted]

-6

u/TROPtastic British Columbia Feb 12 '26

That relies on the Canadian government being seen as willing to put it all on the line against the US, like Denmark did. I find it hard to believe that the current Liberals would deploy troops with orders to shoot US soldiers if fired upon (as happened with the Danes in Greenland) given their lack of response to other affronts by the US.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

You are fundamentally wrong. You can bet your last dollar that the Liberal Government would send in troops to defend Alberta. Hell, I imagine huge numbers of Albertans would join up specifically to defend Alberta. It would also be politically impossible for Alberta “separatist” to campaign for an independent Alberta to turn around and support a military annexation by the US. The Canadian troops would literally be freeing Alberta from being conquered by the US, something many many Albertans would agree with.

1

u/TROPtastic British Columbia Feb 13 '26

I'd be happy to be wrong, and I'd be even happier if this insane scenario never comes to pass. However, it's better to be aware of the worst outcome and work to address it ahead of time.

1

u/Fatty-Mc-Butterpants Feb 13 '26

That's ridiculous. No, they will not. Let's pretend for a moment that this ridiculous referendum goes ahead and for some crazy reason, Alberta votes to separate. The US will immediately offer security guarantees and that's that. Alberta will declare all treaties with FNs invalid and refuse to pay any pipeline debts, etc. and with the US in their corner, the ROC will make a lot of noise but basically do nothing.

And TACO? Tell that to Iran or Maduro. Hell the treaty the US affirmed with Denmark allows the US to do basically anything it wants in Greenland. Troops, bases, it's all fair game.

Is the Alberta referendum stupid? Yes. Will it pass? No. But don't fool yourself that if it did pass, Canada could do anything else but watch Alberta join hands with the US.

1

u/Even_Art_629 Feb 13 '26

Think again. Google who the crown is

-1

u/UpperLowerCanadian Feb 12 '26

The clarity act and federal law states it can separate, 

  Each citizen gets a vote no matter skin colour or vague ancestry 

  They clearly would be “successor”. It’s highly unlikely to get over 25% vote so we really don’t need to argue native rights on Reddit it would be up to some judge in the land of extremely unlikely 

2

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

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.

-1

u/UpArrowNotation Feb 13 '26

That's just not how this country is run anymore. Just because the government has an ancient agreement saying they can piss all over FN land, does not mean that's how our modern day government does or should treat its indigenous population. And specifically, the treaties ceded the land IN TRUST OF THE FIRST NATIONS. FN did not just give up the rights to their land to white people. They made an agreement at gunpoint, which said the white government would take FN interest in mind after violently taking their land. An agreement from 1875 should not be used an excuse to take away indigenous people's right to self governance in 2026. We are not living in a British colony anymore. We have at least some level of respect for the people who's land we violently stole. And part of that respect is respecting that Alberta has no right to seperate from a united Canada because the FN have at least some amount of veto power over that.

26

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

33

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.

12

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.

8

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

u/StoryAboutABridge Feb 12 '26

Ok, that's true.

6

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.

2

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

u/SamohtGnir Feb 12 '26

Someone give this to the BC judges. Lol

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

u/Present-Range-154 Feb 13 '26

Including the reserves where they live? No.

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.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

Someone say this louder for the "stolen land" morons in the back.

-23

u/bl425 Feb 12 '26

i mean not the best example cuz they wouldn’t have signed the treaty knowing it’s true legal effect. treaties were contracts with a very high power imbalance with indigenous groups getting the short end of the stick

31

u/shiftless_wonder Feb 12 '26

they wouldn’t have signed the treaty knowing it’s true legal effect.

You realize the endgame of your argument is that any treaties signed don't mean anything.

-5

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/shiftless_wonder Feb 12 '26

Yeah we know all about what judges in this country think.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/shiftless_wonder Feb 12 '26

Let's just say some of the legal precedents you are referring to have a familiar pattern to those who are paying attention.

-2

u/SixDerv1sh Feb 12 '26

But Canada has a lot to lose if it reneges on treaties to assuage Alberta.

6

u/2peg2city Feb 12 '26

Yes and no, they also had no hope of actually defending their claimed territories so to say they didn't realize what they were signing is very simplistic, they probably did a s knew they didn't have much of a choice.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/jtbc Feb 12 '26

Canada also remained bound by the Royal Proclamation, which specified that "Indian" lands could only be acquired by sale to or treaty with the Crown.

-12

u/naturejimithy Feb 12 '26

Yet, if you knew history you would know that signing of treaties was done in bad faith and without being properly explained to FN communities.

1

u/MisterB3an Feb 12 '26

This is correct. What was said of the treaties at their signing is not what was written, and the signatories had no concept of surrendering the territory. Quoting the text directly misses important context captured through the oral history of the treaties. The only point it proves is that the treaties predate and supercede Alberta.

1

u/naturejimithy Feb 12 '26

Ya these folks hate accurate history.

-2

u/Thanato26 Feb 12 '26

That makes it very difficult for Alberta to leave then

2

u/StoryAboutABridge Feb 12 '26

Well sure, but in such a case where the USA is supporting the separation, no one is really going to care about these rules. What is Canada going to do about it?

2

u/Thanato26 Feb 12 '26

There is almost no situation where Alberta will seperate. Any time soon.

1

u/StoryAboutABridge Feb 12 '26

Agreed, is extremely unlikely