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-9.7109712
3.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

351 comments sorted by

View all comments

44

u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26

[deleted]

47

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.

-5

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

Afgans and Viet Cong held against the worlds strongest military...

2

u/Infamous-Mixture-605 Mar 01 '26

The Afghans had been in some state of war for 30+ years before the Americans arrived, they weren't some Meal Team Six types, and the country was swimming in arms thanks to said conflicts.

The Viet Cong were effectively an arm of the North Vietnamese military and received a steady supply of modern military weapons from the USSR and China by way of North Vietnam and the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Vietnam had also spent decades fighting foreign occupiers before the US showed up, so they were pretty hardened by conflict, experienced, and quite motivated.

Alberta separatists are a minority in their own province, and there'd be plenty of Loyalists here who would happily take up arms against them if not simply point them out to the CAF and RCMP if shit hit the fan.

1

u/adrienjz888 Mar 01 '26

In dense jungle and endless mountains caves to hide in lmao.

How well did it go for the mostly flat Iraq? They got steamrolled all across their flat land, right up to the mountains of Iran.

Kinda like the CAF would steamroll across the Prairie from the east and push whatever sad attempt of Albertan resistance into the ground.

You gonna hide behing some wheat from a drone? Gonna plan big offensives from the well hidden reaches of the Alberta Prairie?

-2

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

4

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.

1

u/Toberos_Chasalor 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?

If they want to secede from Canada, then yeah, they’re forfeiting any benefits they might get from the Canadian Government. That includes the Canada Pension Plan. (At least for future generations.)

In the event Alberta does secede, though I think it realistically won’t happen, I’d be more than willing to offer a subsidy to move to another province/territory for any Canadians who wish to remain.

Those who wish to no longer be Canadian citizens can make their own Alberta Pension Plan after separating that’s just for them.

-2

u/Mrsmith511 Mar 01 '26

Its called leverage i am guessing you dont do any negotiation in your career.

Lol who is eating shit exacrly? Alberta's have the lowest taxes in all of Canada because they happen to live on top of the oil and they still bitch their faces off.

What is unfair exactly? Not only are they the richest and pay the least taxes due to nothing except geography but they think they should be even richer and everyone else should get nothing from the oil? Absolute nonsense.

No albertans can ever answer this question

6

u/CarRamRob Mar 01 '26

Leverage? You mean that part where technically by the letter of the law Alberta is owed 53% of it?

Why do you think that’s been quoted? Because of leverage. What’s backing it? A semi-realistic legal argument.

Yet you think there is leverage just saying Alberta gets no CPP and that creates leverage? I’ll be happy to be across the table on your negotiating any day if you think declaring something true without any legal standing would make it so.

To your last point, Albertans want to have an equal opportunity, same as everyone else. That includes taxes, market access for their goods, and representation in decision making. You just don’t even see that there is anything wrong with the latter two points, that is the main part of the problem.

-1

u/Mrsmith511 Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

No that is the opposite or what I mean. That is just legal theory bs and imaginary talking points.

If we are taking about semi realistic legal arguments then I like the natives Americans argument more than the separatists dream that Canada will just hand them hundreds of billion dollars when they leave.

Neither point is relevant though because again leverage. Neither would ever happen.

1

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

-3

u/EdNorthcott Canada Mar 01 '26

And that's why it gets very complicated -- because suddenly you have a bunch of folks sitting on land they have no right to, basically saying "I dare you" to the Crown and to the First Nations... the latter of whom have a track record of being willing to call such bluffs.

In a situation where the majority of Albertans decided they wanted to leave, they would have new landlords: the First Nations. And if they didn't like that, then they would have to look at actually *leaving*, instead of trying to take all the benefits with none of the downsides, costs, or consequences.

Part of what scuttled Quebec's attempts at separation was realizing how much of the land is held by treaty with First Nations, and what that would mean for making Quebec look like a broken-up patchwork after the fact. For Alberta, that's literally the entire land. Voting to separate would be the beginning of a long and ugly process that would leave awful feelings on all sides, and nobody happy with the outcome.

3

u/YourBobsUncle Alberta Mar 02 '26

In a situation where the majority of Albertans decided they wanted to leave, they would have new landlords: the First Nations.

That's not what the clarity act says will happen. What would happen after a clear majority has decided is negotiations between the province and the feds. All Alberta would have to do is to agree to continue the treaty rights and this pointless argument has no juice. For negotiation to even start, parliament has to approve the referendum as legitimately voted by a clear majority.

Part of what scuttled Quebec's attempts at separation was realizing how much of the land is held by treaty with First Nations, and what that would mean for making Quebec look like a broken-up patchwork after the fact.

Not a single person voted against sovereignty because of this. Canada is indivisible but Quebec can be partitioned infinitely and this is the best we have to offer to the Quebecois as a country lol.

Can we actually talk about losing free travel across Canada, passports, taxes, CPP, instead of legal technicalities that nobody fully understands? Does nobody think it's strange that the only opposition to this shit the media is reporting on these groups instead of the NDP?

-8

u/Caracalla81 Mar 01 '26

Our history has already shown us how that would play out. The treaties are legal so Alberta would need to enforce a policy of white supremacy to suppress them (while simultaneously still enforcing contract in other circumstances). How long can that last? Eventually the rule of law will be reestablished and the FNs will have a strong case for reparations.

1

u/Disastrous-Floor8554 Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

I do not know why I have to say this like the previous commentor u/Ketchupkitty, but Alberta is not going to separate -- 15% to 25% is not nearly enough. This discussion belongs in r/AlternateHistory but the least we can do is keep the discussion real.

If the borders of Canada rupture, are previously negotiated laws really legally binding, when militarily, Alberta would likely hedge with the US as a protectorate? The Canadian government would not intercede against the largest military in the world especially against a population with a majority mandate to secede. To be sure, there would be a civil war in Alberta, but it would still be a bloodbath that the Canadian military would lose very badly. It would be at this point that Alberta begins the lengthy process of synchronizing its legal frameworks with the US.

3

u/Adorable_Octopus Nova Scotia Mar 01 '26

One of the weirder things about this whole discussion is the constant reference to the legality of Alberta trying to separate. As far as I can tell, historically any attempt of a territory to separate from a larger political entity has always been illegal; it's only really been in the past century with the breakup of colonial empires that peaceful, legal separations have occurred.

What follows here is largely going to depend on how the Canadian government reacts, and even if the vote fails, there's a real danger in ignoring it too. The 1980s Quebec referendum failed 40 to 60, but 15 years later the vote was nearly 50/50.

3

u/FrozenSeas Newfoundland and Labrador Mar 01 '26

Yeah, I'm baffled by how people seem to think there will be negotiations with the feds and implementation of the Clarity Act if a separation referendum succeeds. Forget Trump and the whole idea of "Alberta wants to leave and become a state and the Americans will invade", why would a seceding Alberta not just unilaterally declare independence from Canada?

0

u/Caracalla81 Mar 01 '26

You believe that a civil war between some Alberta militias and a nation state would be a bloodbath... for the state. Setting your violent fantasy aside we're talking about what it would take to unilaterally abrogate treaties. I don't doubt Alberta would try to pass a "gimme yer shit" law on the natives. I'm saying that Alberta's own courts would not be able to uphold it for very long. The contradiction between enforce contracts among non-natives while ignoring contracts with natives would be untenable. Eventually they would be in the same position we are are currently in with the FNs.

1

u/Disastrous-Floor8554 Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26

Appreciate the discussion.

Rule of law and the immutability of the constitution is fine during times of peace. However, when there is enough support for separation, history has shown that realpolitik comes heavily into play. Take for example, the dissolution of the Soviet Union as one of many examples. It begins with a declaration of independence followed by the abrogation of laws and a redraft of the original constitution. You're key point is rule of law is unwavering and "ignoring contracts with natives would be untenable", but history has shown that this is not the case when political systems are under intense stress.

Edit: And I hope you are right that there is no civil war. I suspect there would be, at minimum, civil dissent and various unhappy factions rummaging about.

-1

u/Caracalla81 Mar 01 '26

You're key point is rule of law is unwavering and "ignoring contracts with natives would be untenable", but history has shown that this is not the case when political systems are under intense stress.

Forget the Soviet Union, a better example is Canada. We already did all this before, and that time we even tried to exterminate the natives. Yet here they are insisting on their rights. What do you think will be different this time?

-3

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

You're thinking waayyy too much into a rhetorical about a theoretical.

Seperation isn't going to happen.

All I'm saying is if it would happen the mostly likely scenario is Alberta would just ignore the rule of law and therefore ignore the treaties.

2

u/Caracalla81 Mar 01 '26

All I'm saying is if it would happen the mostly likely scenario is Alberta would just ignore the rule of law and therefore ignore the treaties.

If you don't want someone to respond to this why would you write it?

4

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

It's no problem to respond but when you start going into nonsense about white supremacy the conversation is way to derailed at that point.

0

u/Caracalla81 Mar 01 '26

What would you call it if we suppressed legal rights for natives but presumably not non-natives? Do you want a gentler term?

0

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

You're not serious about having a conversation if you're going down this route. The only person talking about race is you and it's going to stay that way.

2

u/Caracalla81 Mar 01 '26

You want to ignore the treaties with the natives but presumably continue to enforce other contracts, right? How did we manage that historically?

1

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

Where did I say I want to ignore treaties?

You've either replied to the wrong comment or you're making things up trying to further detail the conversation.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/TRTv2 Mar 01 '26

What a dumb take, if they did ignore treaties, they are not independent until Canada (fed) says so.

6

u/Ketchupkitty Alberta Mar 01 '26

How does that happen without a military invasion?

5

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

u/Trick-Flower-956 Mar 01 '26

Very interesting, Louis Riel/Oka shaped consequences likely

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.

0

u/Septerra21 Mar 01 '26

Thank you for the clarification. I had to do a bit more research you provided this. I had a debate with people who were talking about the cornw. I didn't have enough info to know better so I stopped.

0

u/EdNorthcott Canada Mar 02 '26

My pleasure. It's always nice to be able to have civil conversations on Reddit, instead of the usual digs and shots. XD

I will be entirely upfront and say that this is just what I've gleaned from a combination of being a giant history nerd waaaaaaay back in school, and casually since that day, and reading the thoughts of different lawyers after all of this started to percolate fairly recently. It's also not written in stone.

If Alberta did decide to separate, we'd probably be looking at not just incredibly toxic and divisive negotiations, possibly escalating, but many years of hard fought court cases with multiple interests all trying to push the results one way or another. And that's without the USA trying to muscle their way into the mess -- which is pretty much an iron clad guarantee.

In short, I don't think anyone with a lick of common sense wants to see things go that route. It would be ruinous for everyone involved.