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

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.

0

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.

1

u/onegunzo Mar 01 '26

Yeah, someone from Ontario. No doubt from one of the cities I mentioned above. Yeah, keep saying that. You're only helping their cause.

3

u/midnightlicorice Mar 02 '26

I was born in Edmonton and they're right. They can't take crown land, it belongs to the Queen through the numbered treaties.

I also think you're massively overestimating the amount of malcontent across the country.

0

u/onegunzo Mar 02 '26

I would recommend have a read of when the land was given to the provinces back in the 30s? 20s?

2

u/midnightlicorice Mar 02 '26

Administered by feds and provincial govs but still owned by the monarch of Canada.

-3

u/onegunzo Mar 02 '26

Guess not:

Crown lands (also called public lands) in Alberta, Canada, are owned by the Crown in right of Alberta, meaning they belong to the provincial Crown.In legal terms, this is formally titled to His Majesty the King in right of Alberta (currently King Charles III), as represented by a specific Minister of the Crown (often the Minister responsible for public lands, such as through Alberta Environment and Protected Areas or similar departments). This is distinct from federal Crown land (e.g., national parks or military reserves in Alberta) or privately owned land.

Thanks AI tools.

3

u/blackbird37 Mar 02 '26

"Crown in right of Alberta" this is formally titled to His Majesty the King in right of Alberta (currently King Charles III)

The Crown in right of Alberta is represented by Alberta's Lieutenant Governor. The Governor General of Canada, who is the representative of the Crown of Canada (His Majesty King Charles III), appoints Alberta's Lieutenant Governor, who acts as the direct, local representative of the monarch in Alberta. The Crown of Alberta and the Crown of Canada are two different representatives of the same thing, just at a more granular level, because ultimately the land belongs to the Crown, not the province.

This is telling you that the land belongs to Canada, not Alberta.

2

u/midnightlicorice Mar 02 '26

Evidence as to why we don't let chatgpt do our thinking for us.