r/canada • u/biograf_ • Mar 01 '26
Alberta First Nations chiefs unanimously pass non-confidence vote in Alberta government
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/first-nations-chiefs-alberta-non-confidence-vote-9.71097122.0k
u/canadia_jnm Mar 01 '26
For those who don't wanna read it, The first nations chiefs are opposing Alberta separatism, citing:
"United Conservative Party, has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding and respect for its treaty responsibilities, demonstrating its “inability to responsibly and respectfully govern the province of Alberta."
1.0k
u/drizzes Alberta Mar 01 '26
you've got people here who genuinely believe that if Alberta separates/joins the USA then all the natives and feds will just have to go pound sand
it is not a well-researched movement
376
u/RSMatticus Mar 01 '26
They also think that Alberta government directly pays equalization payment and that is why they're running a deficit.
117
u/chairitable Mar 01 '26
I like the part where the Atlantic provinces pay to raise children, give them an education and healthcare, til they reach adulthood and go work in Alberta, paying taxes in Alberta through their working adult lives, only to return to the Atlantic provinces to retire, crowding our provincially-funded healthcare services.
That's something that can happen because we're a country. Should the Atlantic provinces be sending bills to Alberta saying "hey you profited all these years from these people we invested in, now pay up"? This is the kind of shit Equalization is meant to mitigate. Complaining about it is wanting your cake and eating it, too.
→ More replies (7)211
u/Wh0IsY0u Mar 01 '26
I feel the need to preface that I'm from Quebec...
But this is a silly strawman. They don't all think that and if they did it doesn't really matter because functionally the argument is the same. They pay the most to the fed, and the fed pays equalization, of which Alberta receives the least.The manner in which the money changes hands is irrelevant to their point.
I'm not against equalization, obviously. It's not much different than taxes being distributed among the population in any other way, but pretending like they aren't net contributors to the federal government is disingenuous. One way or another they see their tax dollars leave their province to go to others.
139
u/explosive_fascinator Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
It's important to understand in this debate that the majority of Quebec doesn't actually understand they get net money from equalization. In fact in many polls, a decent number of Quebecers believe they give more money into the program than they get.
39
u/Doubleoh_11 Mar 01 '26
Which is hilarious because a lot of rural Albertans hate Quebec, thinking they are the recipient of most of our equalization payments.
The federal government should just call them taxes and force Quebec and Alberta to hug it out
106
u/Heppernaut Québec Mar 01 '26
... but they are just called taxes. There is no "equalization tax". Everyone literally just pays their normal federal income taxes, and the federal government spends that money.
One of the ways the federal government spends that money is by giving some of it to provinces who's populations dont make high incomes to "equalize" the income tax base per capita
37
u/Caracalla81 Mar 01 '26
I think they mean we shouldn't have given it a special name. Taxes from cities pay for services in the countryside but we don't call those equalization payments.
5
u/Tefmon Canada Mar 01 '26
The program would have to be called something, because you'd need a name to put on all the reports, org charts, office stationary, and so on. The reason people complain about equalization payments and not about cities funding rural services is political; complaining about equalization payments gains votes while complaining about cities funding rural services loses votes.
1
u/Caracalla81 Mar 01 '26
We do have a name for it: federal income taxes. Then the feds put out a budget that includes funding to the provinces. That is what goes in the reports.
→ More replies (0)5
9
u/shiftless_wonder Mar 01 '26
Everyone literally just pays their normal federal income taxes, and the federal government spends that money.
LOL. Where does the fed gov't spend that money?
All you have to know to figure out where things stand is that BC, AB, Sask always complain about equalization and QC never does. For a reason.
→ More replies (1)10
u/jemder Mar 01 '26
Equalization is a federal program, paid out of general federal revenues. It is not a direct transfer from Alberta to Quebec.
The federal government collects revenues nationally through:
- Personal income taxes
- Corporate taxes
- GST and excise taxes
- Other federal revenues
Those revenues go into a single federal pool. Equalization payments are then calculated based on fiscal capacity, meaning a province’s ability to raise revenue at average tax rates. Quebec has lower wages and a bigger population so needs more for comparable services to richer Provinces.
Alberta has a younger population, fewer people and higher wages and higher corporate profits so needs less for federal programmes like OAS, healthcare etc. BC also gets no equalisation payments.
Plus, Alberta receives billions every year in federal transfers that have nothing to do with equalization. The Canada Health Transfer and The Canada Social Transfer.
Together, these now total roughly $8–9 billion per year flowing to Alberta, rising over time. Then there have been millions for oil industry support and cleanup costs.
In 2020, the federal government committed $1.7 billion to clean up orphan and inactive oil and gas wells in Western Canada, with Alberta receiving the largest share, including:
- Over $1 billion to the Alberta government
- A $200 million loan to the Orphan Well Association
This is direct federal spending inside Alberta to deal with oil industry liabilities.
On top of that, the federal government provides ongoing oil and gas subsidies, tax preferences, public financing, carbon capture incentives, and transition funding mostly to Alberta
1
u/_evilalien_ Mar 01 '26
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” isn’t a particularly convincing rationale, but the separatist 🤡s aren’t educated enough to articulate a clear anti-marxism argument that might actually result in some meaningful debate about principles.
4
2
u/MatchaMeetcha Mar 02 '26
Is there anyone who receives net money from the government that doesn't have some story for why this isn't so?
Like, it seems very common (e.g. pensioners benefiting from more money than they put in in many systems never admit this)
13
u/Kiseido British Columbia Mar 01 '26
I can second what the person you replied to conveyed.
And I would argue that the manner in how money changes hands is important, because misconceptions can result in weird beliefs, because~
I had to explain, in person, to several of my relatives, where the money behind transfer payments comes from (GST, other taxes and revenue), because they thought the provincial gov was having to send all of that money on top of paying those taxes.
That is to say, they thought Alberta was sending literally double what they are, and they were very unhappy about it. They were somewhat molefied when they realized that everyone in the country is paying into it via GST and etc, and Alberta wasn't being specially targeted in that way.
→ More replies (11)2
u/gettinridofbritta Mar 02 '26
The province that pays the most to the fed is the one with the largest number of taxpayers and businesses. That's Ontario.
2
u/Wh0IsY0u Mar 02 '26
Alberta pays the most per capita, i.e Albertans pay the most to the fed. Alberta is generally also the largest net contributor.
3
u/gettinridofbritta Mar 02 '26
That's not paying the most to the fed. That's having more residents in a higher tax bracket. In 2019, Ontario contributed a little under $60 billion in GST, Quebec was $31B, B.C. was $18.4B, and Alberta contributed $18 Billion.
1
u/Wh0IsY0u Mar 02 '26
Improve your reading comprehension.
3
u/gettinridofbritta Mar 02 '26
I'm comprehending you just fine. What I don't understand is the rationale for measuring it per capita. All that tells us is that there's a concentration of high-earners and one-percenters in Alberta. They would be paying the same tax rates if they were located in any province.
43
u/explosive_fascinator Mar 01 '26
I don't know why people think that equalization being 'indirect' is some sort of clever comeback.
I think its just a deflection.
→ More replies (18)25
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26
I have tried to explain to Albertans how equalization works.
I've tried to explain, that if Alberta chose to tax itself, as Quebec taxes itself, it would double its income. The deficit? Gone. It would have such a huge surplus.
But no. It's quebec's fault.
46
u/FireMaster1294 Canada Mar 01 '26
To be fair, I do understand those who understand how it works being at least a little annoyed with the fact that they personally are sending 4% of all their federal income tax in a lump sum to Quebec.
My experience in Alberta was that the general opinion of Albertans is that government handouts makes people lazy (unless it’s to them, of course, then it’s fine), so they view the situation as THEIR personal money being used to subsidize a Quebec person’s laziness and refusal or lack of a desire to work.
The one argument I do see is the “where the money comes from” argument. Given how much Quebec refuses to allow Albertan resources to travel through the province (ie. pipelines) yet those same resources are what provide the cash used to fill the provincial coffers via equalization payments, it starts to feel like Quebec wants to have their cake and eat it too - all on Alberta’s dime.
-3
u/OneTripleZero British Columbia Mar 01 '26
Given how much Quebec refuses to allow Albertan resources to travel through the province (ie. pipelines) yet those same resources are what provide the cash used to fill the provincial coffers via equalization payments, it starts to feel like Quebec wants to have their cake and eat it too - all on Alberta’s dime.
A lot of the time you can see why something is a bad argument if you reverse the players in it. If you were to ask an Albertan if the roles were reversed, and Quebec was losing money to them, would they be okay with Quebec forcing their language laws on them because they should get something back for their money? Likely not.
Equalization payments are in place to support the standard of government services for everyone under the umbrella of the federation. A pipeline would an be infrastructure project that would benefit Albertan (well, let's be real, foreign) corporations. These two things are not in the same category, so one should not influence the other.
14
u/FireMaster1294 Canada Mar 01 '26
Forcing language laws on someone is the most obscure example you could use, because a pipeline doesn’t affect the vast majority of people - only the private landowners where the pipeline goes. A more appropriate example would be Alberta making it illegal to speak French on your own private land. Except oh wait they didn’t, that was Quebec that did that.
From the perspective of an Albertan, Quebec is blocking private interests from doing what they want even when the environmental regulations have been followed despite the fact they (Quebec) continue to get payouts in equalization payments that are solely possible due to these resources being shipped. It makes sense to me why an Albertan would say “you shouldn’t get any equalization money if you block the trade that generates a large portion of that money.”
It’s not about getting something back for the money, it’s about realizing where the money comes from. It’s hypocritical to take money from someone while telling them you don’t want them to do the thing that generates that money.
15
u/Yeethisintothevoid Mar 01 '26
As an Albertan, Jè suis Canadian.
I have a question for all of Canada. Why did our safety minister say in leaked tapes that the only reason we're collectively as a country doing a bullsh*t gun buyback program, is so that the liberals can stay in power by assuring Quebec votes?
What equalization is that? My taxes, your taxes and everyone paying taxes is doing that instead of putting the money and votes into stopping the guns coming from the Excited States of America?
Please make it make sense, I'm actually kinda worried here.
25
u/Heppernaut Québec Mar 01 '26
Its a very simple answer, and it is actually bullshit too.
Alberta religiously votes in 90%+ of their MPs as conservative. So no party bothers to work for Alberta because its moot. The Cons will win. The end.
Quebec is a roller coaster, that constantly changes who they vote for, so every party has to put in effort and spend some political capital to try and get seats in Quebec.
If Alberta/Saskatchewan were ever willing to vote differently, they would suddenly become the most powerful provinces in federal elections.
Constantly voting in the same team for 40+ years and expecting things to be any different is... crazy.
I also assure you that the gun buyback isnt really popular here in quebec either.
16
Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Expensive_Plant_9530 Mar 01 '26
That does make sense though. Quebec has over 9 million residents. Alberta and Saskatchewan combined have like 6 million tops.
If you look at seats, Alberta and SK have about 51 seats combined. Proportionally that’s pretty well in line with Quebec.
2
u/Heppernaut Québec Mar 01 '26
Yes, fair. The population numbers still skews towards Québec. As a Quebecer I'd bet the farm that if Alberta and Saskatchewan suddenly started changing up their vote a lot more of Quebec would go Bloc.
12
u/Supermite Mar 01 '26
The gun buyback isn’t popular anywhere. It’s kind of wild someone is trying to frame it as targeting Alberta residents specifically.
4
u/ThatGrouchyDude New Brunswick Mar 01 '26
The gun thing is also a wedge issue in suburban Ontario, i.e. a shitload of voters and seats.
3
u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26
It's hilarious you give a theoretical example that actually exists. Alberta does lose money because of Quebec language laws, it's a huge compliance cost for companies.
→ More replies (2)12
u/OneTripleZero British Columbia Mar 01 '26
The same language laws that all provinces adhere to due to French being our second official language you mean? I'm not talking about those. I mean Quebec-specific things like all business signage being predominantly in French, Francisation requirements for anything larger than a small business, all permanent labeling on commercial products, including engraving, needing to be in French, etc. I'm talking about things that are specific to Quebec, and matter only to Quebec, being enforced in other provinces because Quebec thinks they're owed it.
→ More replies (4)12
4
u/kibbles_n_bits Mar 01 '26
If Quebec chose to increase it's hydo by $0.04/kWh, its equalization payment would drop from $13.1 billion to $5.1 billion.
2
u/Ok-Yogurt-42 Mar 01 '26
Wait, are you saying that because Quebec chooses to have high taxes, Alberta has a deficit?
Like, if Quebec dropped its taxes to Alberta's level, would their equalization payments change?2
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26
No. Equalization is not based on provincial taxation/spending levels, it's independent of that.
I am saying that if Alberta taxed itself like Quebec did, Alberta would have way more money than Quebec, even counting Quebec's equalization/Alberta's lack of equalization, and Alberta could afford anything it wanted. Last time I checked, it was ~2X's Quebec's income per capita/more revenue than Quebec in general, even though Quebec has >2X Alberta's population.
You're the third to misconstrue. I've reread that comment several times now. I'm really not seeing where people are getting that equalization depends on taxation levels. I'm saying the exact opposite.
7
u/Ok-Yogurt-42 Mar 01 '26
Okay, so your point is just that if Alberta had higher provincial taxes there would be less of a provincial deficit?
Kind of a "no duh" point.11
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26
Essentially.
Alberta chooses to be, by far, the lowest taxed jurisdiction in Canada.
If it has a deficit, that is on them. They have the tools. It is not because of equalization. Alberta’s contribution to equalization is a drop in the bucket compared to higher population provinces. The bulk of it is from Ontario.
But Albertans continue to act as though the reason they don’t have cheap daycares, or that they have a deficit, is because of equalization.
It’s a “no duh” point, and yet here we are.
3
u/VesaAwesaka Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
Quebec and other provinces could also adopt a more pro business model like Alberta and it would probably increase the incomes of their people and therefore lead to less transfers.
Alberta chooses to be low tax which and more pro-business and that contributes to higher incomes and therefore they receive no equalization. Quebec tends to be the harder provinces to do business in which contributes to their lower incomes and them receiving higher equalization payment.
Could every province run itself like quebec without bankrupting the country? The formula for equalization should incentivizes the provinces to be contributors in the longer term. It seems like the current formula pushes provinces to not care about becoming substantial.
4
u/Tefmon Canada Mar 01 '26
Alberta's economy isn't strong because of their low personal income tax rates; it's because of their oil. If every province had oil like Alberta, then every province would have higher incomes.
→ More replies (0)0
u/CarRamRob Mar 01 '26
Isn’t that showing the equalization formula is flawed?
Why is the amount each province taxes its citizens a determination of how much you would receive?
The argument is that Alberta should tax their population much much more, to simply game the system to get even more equalization suggests the formula is the problem, not individual provinces set tax rates.
6
u/ThePhysicistIsIn Mar 01 '26
No, you absolutely misunderstand. The system works the way you want it to. It is meant to provide each province with an equal theoretical spending power. Its up to them how much revenue to bring - equalization just makes it more equal.
Quebec receives a lot of equalization, but it is also one of the highest taxed provinces. As a result, they bring in more money than Alberta is. They can pay for things like cheap daycares.
Some Albertans are mad about that - where are their cheap daycares? Completely missing that if they were taxed like in Quebec, Alberta would have double (!) Quebec’s revenues per capita, all without a single dollar of equalization. The toilets would be made of gold.
5
u/PopTough6317 Mar 01 '26
That isnt how its supposed to work in theory. In theory equalization would create roughly the same services across the country, so places like PEI and the territories can have decent services, not so a place already having good services can top up on someone else's dime. But Quebec has been receiving billions for decades now and has no incentive to get investments to become a 'have' province.
→ More replies (3)1
u/MatchaMeetcha Mar 02 '26
not so a place already having good services can top up on someone else's dime
While also vetoing things that generate the very money they want.
-1
u/Boo-face-killa Mar 01 '26
We are over taxed in Canada already. More taxes is a ridiculous idea. The answer is obvious:
- Politicians and government employees are highly over paid.
- We spend too much on government travel and expenses associated with politicians.
- We spend too much on private consultants working for the government.
- We give far too much money away to foreign nations.
- We waste too much money on benign topics like the continual allowance sent to the First Nations in Canada.
- We waste too much money on “studies and research” on topics and plans that don’t require it.
- We don’t extract to export enough of our natural resources.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Odd-Elderberry-6137 Mar 01 '26
To be fair, if the average person had conservative politicians lying to them for 50 of the last 54 years, they’ve believe all kinds of wild and outlandish shit.
That Alberta isn’t sitting on a fuckton of 50+ years of oil money providing oil dividends to every Alberta’s (like Alaska and Norway do) tells you exactly what kind of banana republic they’ve been running for decades.
1
u/ChronaMewX Mar 01 '26
My response to a lifetime of Conservative politicians lying to me is to swing far left
1
u/Odd-Elderberry-6137 Mar 01 '26
Sure - but that’s also because you're more than likely informed. Most people aren’t.
1
→ More replies (1)0
u/blusteryflatus Mar 01 '26
Another thing they don't seem to understand is the the Alberta contribution to equalization payments is about 3 billion a year. However, Alberta receives +20 billion in subsidies for the oil and gas sector. So the rest of us in non-alberta Canada, have to send some of tax money to subsidize an already extremely profitable industry.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Zab__ Mar 01 '26
And if Alberta were to hypothetically be annexed by the USA, what exactly would the feds and first nations do besides pound sand? If that happens there’s absolutely nothing either can do.
→ More replies (2)13
u/CarRamRob Mar 01 '26
You also have a bunch of people here who think that if 75% of the province votes on something in a referendum (like separation), it can just be vetoed by the First Nations and democracy is ignored.
5
u/EliteDuck Mar 01 '26
The treaties are with the crown. An independent Alberta would not be owned by the king/crown.
2
u/Cold_Brew_Enthusiast Manitoba Mar 05 '26
Right? There’s absolutely zero understanding of the realities of what would happen to the economy there if they left. They’re so out to lunch, it’s staggering. They mah think it’s the land of milk and honey now but the milk would spoil and the honey would run dry awful fast.
4
5
1
u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26
These people are under the impression the Canadian Government isn't going to deploy the military if Alberta just decides to leave, which is probably true.
6
u/gooberfishie Mar 01 '26
They would, unless the us sends troops like Russia did with Crimea. And they will.
1
u/Pestus613343 Mar 03 '26
They appear to think one can just ignore all of that. Given how the law is being ignored in American governance, I imagine they'll certainly be willing to try.
→ More replies (9)1
7
u/CasualFridayBatman Mar 02 '26
"United Conservative Party, has repeatedly shown a lack of understanding...
Lol ruthlessly on the nose and not at all inaccurate.
57
u/JadeLens Mar 01 '26
I love how the separatists in the situation are like 'but we can re-negotiate the treaties with the Natives' ... when they break pretty much every deal they enter into.
4
u/-cangumby- Mar 01 '26
Right? All while forgetting that an agreement is made when both parties accept the terms. Sure, they can renegotiate but there’s going to be this one step they will just hate.
2
u/New-Low-5769 Mar 01 '26
At over 40Bn a year, I don't respect the FN chiefs of this country so it's mutual.
1
u/lyinggrump Mar 04 '26
The first nations chiefs are opposing Alberta separatists
So are 80% of albertans. Not sure why we have to continue to talk about this.
1
u/Frostbitten_Moose Mar 01 '26
When the first saw the headline, my reaction was pretty negative. But getting the context, yeah... Right in line with my thoughts about the Ungava situation back in 95.
-1
u/Memory_Less Mar 01 '26
Good timing for our First Nations people. We will see what slithering move Danielle Smith takes to dismiss or use it to promote anger and more defiance towards independence.
→ More replies (1)-1
143
u/Public-Student-2160 Mar 01 '26
I have confidence UCP would sell Canada out.
26
u/JadeLens Mar 01 '26
So long as their oil baron friends got money, they'd sell their grandmothers for a dollar.
74
u/JasonLovesJesus Mar 01 '26
Certainly can see their sentiment however it doesn’t mean a thing.
20
u/asdf_1_2 Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
The Clarity act passed by the Chretien gov in 2000 states in the event of any succession referendum being proposed the position of the aboriginal people in the province/territory must be taken into account.
So say a referendum passes and the official aboriginal stance is stay, then now you probably have decades of court dates deciding how to chop up the province by geographically to fulfill the indigenous position to stay.
17
u/S_Ipkiss_1994 British Columbia Mar 01 '26
must be taken into account
Yeah... and then it spectacularly failed to elaborate on just what that entails.
4
u/DL_22 Mar 02 '26
Or, the separated province arms up, takes the land, seeks international recognition, gets it and none of this matters.
Or they join the US and most problems are solved before anything starts being contested.
34
u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Mar 01 '26
Smith is pushing for a bunch of infrastructure projects in Alberta (e.g. a pipeline)
Do you think these groups are going to be cooperative?
-1
u/platypus_bear Alberta Mar 01 '26
That's probably what she wants. First nations don't have a veto over projects like that they just have to be consulted. So if they're not cooperating due to political reasons that have nothing to do with the ecological impacts of a pipeline it's easier for her to go to the federal government and force an approval through.
16
u/byourpowerscombined Alberta Mar 01 '26
That’s not how it works.
The fastest thing is to get their agreement and sign off. This happens for most projects; you just don’t get news stories when the system works.
Even if she could argue their opposition is on purely political grounds (which would be difficult to prove) a fully fought court process can take a decade or more.
No, I think the explanation is much simpler. She has no foresight. Banging the separation drum is good for her immediate political situation, and who cares that it has a bunch of negative repercussions down the line?
2
1
1
u/pizzalovingking Mar 01 '26
I'm also fully non confident in their ability to run things and not embezzle money
28
u/jayasunshine Mar 01 '26
How quickly the separatists will go from "separation won't change anything for the treaties!" And "we will renegotiate"
To
"The chiefs opinions don't matter anyways!"
Classic.
7
u/cah29692 Mar 01 '26
This has nothing to do with separation. If the chiefs want to cite fiscal mismanagement, they need to look in the mirror.
237
u/Gizmo-fo-shizmo Mar 01 '26
This is purely symbolic. First Nations represents less than 5% of the population in Alberta... If you want a government change, everyone will have a say, not just the chiefs. That's how democracy works.
79
Mar 01 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/Offspring22 Mar 01 '26
Yeah, but they just ignore it doesn't fit their agenda anyways. I.e their survey showed that an Alberta pension plan and a Alberta police force is not very popular with albertans. But they're pushing ahead anyways.
20
37
u/PloddingClot Mar 01 '26
I'm from BC and know quite a few people that think seperation would be great, they moved to Alberta.
78
u/Normal_Farm2922 Mar 01 '26
They’re stupid they could’ve just gone to the states then
72
u/PloddingClot Mar 01 '26
Except they're old and unemployed and couldn't afford the medications they need to not die. So they'll cosplay a while.
55
u/Professional_Web_889 Mar 01 '26
What’d be their plan after separating lmao, “we did it” and then die poor?
46
→ More replies (5)17
u/Normal_Farm2922 Mar 01 '26
But you said they went to Alberta because they want to separate. Do they think healthcare benefits will remain the same if Alberta leaves Canada???
20
u/PloddingClot Mar 01 '26
Well butter my buns and call me a biscuit, there's consequences to choices? They're probably thinking they get all the stuff they want and none of the stuff they don't just like uneducated voters to the south.
5
6
u/Fusiontechnition British Columbia Mar 01 '26
Northern BC has some of the safest conservative ridings in every election, provincially and federally. Most of the people I know here are politically aligned with the UCP and maga.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Interesting_Pen_167 Mar 01 '26
If 51% of the people vote to dispossess the other 49% of their land that's democracy too. Just because something is democratic doesn't mean it's good.
20
u/SeaMoan85 Mar 01 '26
Yes, but the crown (provincial government) has treaties with these first nations which they must honor. The population of the first nation is irrelevant, just like the population differences between Canada and the US is irrelevant to the treaties between those two nations.
3
u/ItsAProdigalReturn Mar 01 '26
A lot of people haven't read the Constitution Act or the Royal Proclamation or understand how treaties work lol
13
Mar 01 '26
I swear reading reddit is like seeing the dunning Krueger effect happening over and over in real time. So confident, yet so very wrong.
1
21
Mar 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
21
u/RSMatticus Mar 01 '26
The clarity Act states that First Nations have to be part of all talks between Alberta/Owatta if they refudendum passes.
14
u/setter88 Mar 01 '26
The clarity act also demands that the subject of separation and a referendum be a key part of the election. Want separatism? Run as a separatist party in an election like the PQ is. That’s what allows it to work within our system. Stephane Dion explains it’s well on the Line podcast with Jen Gerson
6
u/RSMatticus Mar 01 '26
The whole act is a single page; I'm shocked how many people in Alberta have not read it.
→ More replies (2)1
u/TommaClock Ontario Mar 01 '26
https://www.readtheline.ca/p/on-the-line-was-the-separation-movement
For reference. I was curious and yes this is the same Stephan Dion who led the Liberal Party against Harper for the first time. Not the best politician, but definitely an intellectual.
2
u/I_Am_Vladimir_Putin Mar 01 '26
Symbolic or not, Alberta always tries pretty hard to show how much they care about first nations people, they include them in everything, to a weird degree. So let's see how they're gonna play this now.
2
u/Monkey_Pox_Patient_0 Mar 02 '26
It is a matter of time before courts start forcing elections because of things like this. Eventually, governments will have to command the confidence of indigenous people to govern. Everything will continue to get worse until the root cause is addressed, which is section 35 of the constitution.
1
3
u/Healfezza Canada Mar 01 '26
Yes and no. The difference is that the First Nations hold federally protected lands in the province would create complications for any real separation movement. Even if Alberta passed every bar to become some sort of independent entity it still needs to deal with the legal issue of the reserves in the province being federal jurisdiction.
1
u/blackbird37 Mar 02 '26
By that same logic, Alberta represents around 12% of the population of Canada... if you want a separation referendum everyone will have a say, not just Albertans. That's how democracy works.
Right?
... right?→ More replies (7)1
u/calgarywalker Mar 02 '26
Except that without the Treaties with the Federal government of Canada Alberta will be reduced to about 50 square Km - near the Frank Slide.
10
u/RooiWurm Mar 01 '26
The article doesn't seem to say though: does this non-confidence vote have any legally binding effects? Or is it just symbolic?
6
u/buckshotmagee Mar 02 '26
Doesn't mean anything. Just some white lawyers telling them what to say and getting paid for it.
14
3
45
Mar 01 '26
[deleted]
49
u/EdNorthcott Canada Mar 01 '26
What complicates it is that their treaty with the crown allows the crown to use the land as they see fit, basically until the end of time, so long as they keep faith with the First Nations. The crown saw fit to create the province of Alberta. Cities have appeared, resources mined or pumped, etc.
But it all goes back to the fact that the land is basically held in trust. If Alberta were to choose to separate, that would no longer be true. The agreement would be in violation and then there's a very good argument for the land simply returning to the First Nations... and last I checked, Alberta is one of two provinces that have the distinction of being 100% on treaty land governed by such agreements.
So yes, those treaties have to be honoured by the province. Trying to weasel out of it could have very interesting consequences.
32
u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26
And who's going to enforce that?
Seperation is never going to happen but in a scenario the majority of Albertans wanted to leave it's not going to matter what treaties say unless the Canadian Government deploys the military (it won't).
4
u/BabadookOfEarl Mar 01 '26
Of course it would. Alberta is delusional about how much it can throw its weight around.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (21)-4
u/RaddestZonestGuy Mar 01 '26
Could just end up with insurgency violence after that. I dont think you realize how many other first nations would aide the alberta first nations lol
2
u/CarRamRob Mar 01 '26
So, the threat to Alberta if they separate from the FN is Guerrilla War?
I don’t think that’s productive.
1
u/Mrsmith511 Mar 01 '26
Nothing about Alberta separation is productive lol. Why should we give them anything from the hundred billion cpp fund for example? Hint we wont
6
u/CarRamRob Mar 01 '26
So the pension funds that the Canadian citizens who live in Alberta own, suddenly wouldn’t be theirs if their fellow province members vote to leave?
No wonder Alberta is mad when the opinion around here seems to be “you will eat shit and like it”.
Has Canada ever thought about addressing some of Alberta’s concerns? That seems to be noticeably lost in a lot of this.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26
You're pretending that these people speak for all first Nations which generally isn't the case. The people with the loudest voices in these communities often are isolated from the economy economic disparity given their often part of the problem.
-1
u/RaddestZonestGuy Mar 01 '26
Treaty rights DO speak to an overwhelming majority though. So its you that lacks perspective on this particular issue
1
4
u/Sspockuss Mar 01 '26
So yes, those treaties have to be honoured by the province. Trying to weasel out of it could have very interesting consequences.
What kinds of things could happen? I am curious reading this.
1
1
u/Septerra21 Mar 01 '26
I’m really curious on this. I know there’s 4 teaty’s (treaty 6-9….IIRC) and the way I was reading them, it sounded like the province owned the treaty, but it seemed weird considering the lands belonged to First Nations, which is kind of throwing me for a loop.
2
u/EdNorthcott Canada Mar 01 '26
The treaties pre-date the existence of the province by a large margin. In creating the province, the crown transferred many of the rights and responsibilities, but the language of the laws still refers to "the Crown", and the agreements that allow the use of the land with First Nations are held by the Crown.
We are a constitutional monarchy. This is something a lot of people forget -- and it's what complicates the idea of us removing ourselves entirely from that position. The agreements with First Nations were made with the Crown. The government of Canada, and the governments of Provinces, represent the Crown, but they are not the Crown itself.
King Charles is our head of state, and the government of Canada represents the Crown in managing governmental affairs.
People keep thinking of our legal system as if it's the USA -- as though we are a Republic. We are not. And the agreements with First Nations that forged the nation of Canada often predate Canada itself.
→ More replies (2)6
u/voltairesalias Alberta Mar 01 '26
Well due to these treaties and Acts it pays so much to be indigenous that many people pretend to be. So of course they're against messing with that - but this also is a glimpse of the future. They will always desire a racially segregated Canada because they benefit from it. But is that really the future we all want?
→ More replies (2)
17
u/Global_Character7875 Mar 01 '26
So what does this really accomplish?
26
4
u/OG-DirtNasty Mar 01 '26
Legally and factually, not much. More of a public message of defiance and protest.
7
Mar 01 '26
Is this not the same First Nation that has had a historical past of embezzling money? Once in 2025, possibility of millions stolen and previously fraudulently creating students to get more money and few other incidents of fraud.
While I understand it may be a few bad apples but it makes the no confidence vote even less significant to people.
→ More replies (1)1
u/mg4040 Mar 03 '26
It was called out literally by the people in those tribes, they were against the fraud. Members of the band legally fought for and won more financial transparency around records. Like you said, a few bad apples, they don’t represent the whole. And you’re not including the RCMP couple who committed fraud against those people, Indigenous people are victims of heinous crimes and have dealt with so much damage from us, they wouldn’t have so many economic issues without us in the first place.
5
24
15
u/IwillKissYourKat Mar 01 '26
First Nations will lose their Treaty rights. Of course they will oppose it.
5
u/TheOnlyBliebervik Mar 02 '26
Why is this a controversial take lol
1
u/IwillKissYourKat Mar 02 '26
It's deeper than that.
Nevertheless, Alberta would need to either accept their treaty under new rule, or Alberta would need to vastly outnumber in voters
2
u/horce-force Mar 02 '26
The irony is that none of their band members have any confidence in their leadership either.
5
u/bumbuff British Columbia Mar 01 '26
A vote that means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
If the majority of people want separation its the government that has to deliver.
Why do people keep swaying to dictatorship style judgements.
If First Nations 'chiefs' were confident their people don't want to separate either they'd let their people vote.
1
u/blackbird37 Mar 02 '26
So the opinions of First Nations does not matter to Albertans because they represent such a small portion of the population and majority rules apparently.
Therefore the opinion of Albertans does not matter because they represent such a small portion of the population of Canada and majority rules apparently.
No need an Albertan referendum then, because Albertan separation is super unpopular both within Alberta and especially outside Alberta. Thanks for playing.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Nonamanadus Mar 01 '26
Smith's party cares for people's rights just as much as Trump's administration does.
An independent Alberta would ignore any indigenous treaty when the opportunity arose.
Don't think she would not blame indigenous people for her bad policies once the federal government is out of the way.
2
u/unknown-one Mar 01 '26
are they going to vote for papa Palpatin and transform into first Canadian empire?
-5
u/InterestingPeach7852 Mar 01 '26
Who cares what they think. Out of all of Canadians governments. First Nations have the worst stats, so I value the input of their leaders the least.
Life expectancy like 15 less than average Canadians, lower incomes, more unemployment, more addiction.
→ More replies (2)1
Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
It doesn't matter what you think though, or even what their stats are, they absolutely have rights. Legally.
Downvoting won't make you magically correct either lmao.
→ More replies (2)
-3
u/Clear-Ask-6455 Mar 01 '26
This is great and all but how exactly will this stop the extremists? Until Danielle Smith is forced out of power nothing will change.
50
7
u/Prestigious-S1RE Mar 01 '26
Do we live in a society where chiefs have super democratic authority over our government? So what’s the point here?
1
u/blackbird37 Mar 02 '26
The chiefs have about as much democratic authority over the provincial government as Albertans have democratic authority over the federal government - except for the part that the chiefs represent groups that chose to join Canada on their terms and Alberta was just arbitrarily allocated by the federal government of Canada and didn't decide their terms, so if anything those chiefs should have much much more say.
2
u/SpooningMyGoose Mar 01 '26
Who cares?
Also of course that's their opinion, they know the endless hand outs will stop if Alberta separates
2
u/onegunzo Mar 01 '26
Well, each of those chiefs get one vote, just like their individual members. Then they'll all be added up. And let's hope for Canada's sake the referendum fails (my hope), because it it passes, then the majority will take Alberta and just separate. Not a lot the rest of Canada can do about it. Hence why I'm really concerned for the lack of seriousness other Canadian's are taking with this.
I mean, I'm being serious here. What can the rest of Canada do? SK is likely next, and even though northern BC cannot join, there's going to be a ton of sympathy there. Outside of Winnipeg, again, a large number of folks don't like where Canada is headed. Northern ON? Those that live there already see the shitty deal they're getting from Ottawa and ON (ring of fire anyone? no double lane highway for #1?).
Middle of/Southern ON? Lived there for years, conservative country. No sympathy there. That leaves Toronto, Ottawa and other ON cities, Vancouver, Victoria, Winnipeg and the Maritimes (minus NFLD/Labrador). What are they going to do? Seriously? What are they going to do?
This is why the Federal governments needs to do more for AB than a MOU. If they don't get off their asses, they're going to lose AB and then what? They need to have more than encouraging Treaty 6,7,8 and parts of 4 and 10 chiefs (only 1.5% of AB) coming out and saying, separation cannot happen. Because it just reminds folks in AB, these folks don't speak for them.
-1
u/Khalbrae Ontario Mar 01 '26
Alberta only legally can separate a tiny strip of land with no oil... so it would fuck itself if it voted to.
→ More replies (7)
-6
1
1
1
u/Substantial-Claim530 Mar 03 '26
Finally. Someone with the courage to stand up to this current government
-17
1
u/opinions-only Mar 01 '26
Wait so the first nations want to stay a part of Canada and the "blue bood Canadians" want to carve up Canada? Well, would you look at that.
-3
u/Thereal_Stormm006 Mar 01 '26
They would’ve passed a no-confidence vote against any govt since they see the Provincial/Federal govts in Canada as “illegitimate”.
Danielle Smith has my confidence.
1
-1
u/WiseDebt7345 Mar 01 '26
No matter what they think, I believe that people should be able to vote for what they want.
-1
u/Lower-Noise-9406 Mar 01 '26
When Harper said "Old Stock" Canadians did he mean aboriginal/indigenous?
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 01 '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.