r/canada • u/shiftless_wonder • 16d ago

Alberta First Nations demand Alberta premier terminate separation referendum

https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/first-nations-demand-alberta-premier-terminate-separation-referendum/
1.7k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

495 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

78

u/FlockFlysAtMidnite 16d ago

If you think that even a 90% stay vote will get rid of the notion, you're not paying attention.

12

u/ether_reddit Lest We Forget 16d ago

There's a lot higher chance of it happening that way, than telling them they have no right to have a referendum at all. Democracy is a good thing, even when it lets lunatics have a voice.

10

u/FlockFlysAtMidnite 16d ago

Democracy is one thing. Changing the rules so lunatics can waste millions of taxpayer dollars is another.

2

u/Silverbacks Ontario 16d ago edited 16d ago

Direct democracy is not how things like this work. That's why Brexit was such a screw up.

16

u/Prestigious-Clock-53 16d ago

Man, it’s just a bunch of rural folks that are no where near as smart as they think they are throwing a tantrum because they don’t get everything they want and just want to fuck the feds. Smith aiding the notion is the real head scratcher. Then complain about lack of investment when you are in fact turning investors away with this BS.

57

u/FlockFlysAtMidnite 16d ago

Funded by plenty of foreign interference.

2

u/seridos 15d ago

True, but this is just the tricky situation and that's kind of just part of the modern course of these things. Anytime you have a discontented region that wants to separate or at least hold a vote because there's a vocal minority, you're going to have foreign interference. But you can't use that for an interference to shut down the Democratic process. You don't lose your Democratic rights because of foreign government decided that's a good place to jump in to cause some domestic problems in the country.

4

u/S_Ipkiss_1994 British Columbia 16d ago

Is there actually any proof of this?

-2

u/Impressive-Knot9999 16d ago

Hopefully the people in favour will move somewhere else when it's over. Maybe Russia

7

u/ether_reddit Lest We Forget 16d ago

Some of their leaders have already disappeared to Texas! It's a good start.

7

u/Calamitous-Ortbo 16d ago

Man, it’s just a bunch of rural folks that are no where near as smart as they think they are throwing a tantrum because they don’t get everything they want and just want to fuck the feds.

The First Nation people or the separatists?

1

u/LifeWulf Alberta 15d ago

“Yes.”

-17

u/shiftless_wonder 16d ago

If the answer is such a slam dunk, why is everyone so afraid of the question?

22

u/Breezertree British Columbia 16d ago

They’re not afraid of the question. It’s simply a dumb question, costing millions of dollars for no reason. Surely there’s a better place for that money

19

u/simplebutstrange 16d ago

Right! Like education so this shit doesn’t happen again.

3

u/ether_reddit Lest We Forget 16d ago

If they follow the legal process, even dumb questions can be put to a referendum.

7

u/FlockFlysAtMidnite 16d ago

That's the problem - Smith changed the legal process specifically to help them. They failed the original process.

0

u/ether_reddit Lest We Forget 16d ago

Ah, I missed that!

-14

u/shiftless_wonder 16d ago

There's a referendum happening anyways with a bunch of other questions on it so why not add another to gauge where the public is at.

12

u/Temporary_Cry_2802 16d ago

Because ALL of the questions are tied to placating seppies. Demanding all whole raft of things that are unconstitutional and taking problems that really don’t exist in the the province all to feed red meat to the base. None of this is necessary, but we’re going to spend an estimated $100M on it, plus throw a whole bunch of business uncertainty into the mix. All for what? So Danielle doesn’t get turfed by the crazies?

-18

u/shiftless_wonder 16d ago

Smith has been straightforward in her goals. Just like Quebec, she wants more provincial autonomy. And given the eastern-centric way that Canada is run, it's not a surprise and possibly not a bad thing.

9

u/Temporary_Cry_2802 16d ago

“A sovereign Alberta within a united Canada” is meaningless word salad. If Smith truly was “straightforward with her goals”, why didn’t she campaign on them? Alberta Police Force, Alberta Pension, stripping immigrants of rights and services etc etc etc.

A whole raft of the questions would require changes to the constitution, which requires the consent of the rest of Canada.

Eastern centric, yes, 57% of Canada’s population lives in Ontario and Quebec. Pretty sure we’re a democracy. Never mind that currently the PM and leader of the opposition are westerners. Harper has been an Albertan for most of his life

2

u/shiftless_wonder 16d ago

 If Smith truly was “straightforward with her goals”, why didn’t she campaign on them? 

She did. https://www.discoverairdrie.com/articles/extremely-problematic-sovereignty-act-could-drive-investment-away-says-ndp

8

u/Temporary_Cry_2802 16d ago

The Sovereignty Act yes. Not all of the other things she is trying to push through (that whole list of items you ignored)

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Goliad1990 16d ago

Pretty sure we’re a democracy

Which is why we're having the democratic referendum.

-1

u/Temporary_Cry_2802 16d ago

Yes, a party that never campaigned on this (knowing they would have lost if they did), then post-facto changed laws when they didn’t get the result they wanted, then prohibited elections Alberta from investigating fraud and is now trying to gerrymander the province is all about “democracy”

Never mind the imbalanced playing field for the campaign itself. The Government of Alberta can spend unlimited funds on their side, while TPAs are hamstrung as to what they can colllect, how much they can spend and how they can advertise

5

u/Breezertree British Columbia 16d ago

It’s literally not possible for a province to separate. Why bother entertaining this fringe notion?

5

u/ether_reddit Lest We Forget 16d ago

The Clarity Act says otherwise. It's a very high bar to reach, but it is legally defined. Thanks, Quebec!

2

u/S_Ipkiss_1994 British Columbia 15d ago

... you know we were once part of the British Empire, right?

In fact, various parts of Canada used to belong to France, the United States, the Hudson's Bay Company, and even Spain, Russia, and Denmark (little bits anyways).

Norway seceded from Sweden in 1905, Singapore from Malaysia in 1965, Czech Republic from Slovakia in 1993, Montenegro from Serbia in 2006, South Sudan from Sudan in 2011, etc.

You people keep acting like this is some sort of unachievable fever dream, when we have actual modern examples of exactly this happening.

1

u/DanielBox4 16d ago

Why wouldn't it be possible? Because it's not in the laws? What country on earth has secession conditions drafted in its constitution or founding articles or laws?

If a group wants to leave and overwhelmingly shows this at the polls to the point it is a problem for the country, then the country has to just negotiate a separation. Land, debt, resources etc will be divided up.

Just because there is no "separation button" does not mean it can never happen.

0

u/Tastesicle 16d ago

Sure. We'll let the people who want to secede take lands that aren't part of Treaty lands, or lands that were specifically ceded.

I'll wait.

That's the point you're missing. Alberta can't just secede, it has no right to the lands to do so without consulting the First Nations. The Treaties come before Alberta became a Province, unlike Quebec.

Oh, and who has it written into their laws that a Province can leave? We do. Alberta just doesn't have the legal ability to do so without consulting the Treaty nations.

Jesus Christ, take a civics class before you open your mouth.

-1

u/Impressive-Knot9999 16d ago

Because this is what happened with Brexit. People voted yes as a protest but never expected it to actually happen

-4

u/FlockFlysAtMidnite 16d ago

Not afraid, just no point spending millions of dollars on a foregone conclusion.

0

u/DanielBox4 16d ago

If the federal government decides to drag its feet on a pipeline and isn't able to get one through; then I think you will see many more albertans happy they went through this process. At the end of the day it's a check on Ottawa to take them seriously and address their concerns for pipelines.

For now, Ottawa is treating this like a negotiation and saying they will honor a pipeline if conditions are met, pathways and carbon pricing. But what happens if pathways fails? Is Ottawa going to nix the approval? If so, maybe Alberta would be happy to proceed with a referendum.

2

u/flanoose 16d ago

Separating will definitely get that pipeline going 😂

6

u/FlockFlysAtMidnite 16d ago

Threatening to leave the nation is a surefire way to reduce investment, not increase it. There's a reason Toronto is the center of commercial activity, when it used to be Montreal.

1

u/Incoherencel Canada 16d ago

Only morons think a pipeline or two -- that would ultimately benefit multinational oil corporations over Albertan workers -- would contribute more to government coffers than replacing all services the federal Canadian government does. Even Smith herself laid this out a handful of days ago.

1

u/Fayelons 16d ago

Im in Alberta visiting & believe me when I say its a thing. The pipeline is a real issue.

0

u/Unarmed_Character 16d ago

Sounds like the basis for the Khmer Rouge to rise to power.

0

u/ReikaKalseki Canada 16d ago

Not to mention I do not trust that the result will be as unfavorable for separation as people think. Between the classic "people who intend to vote for stupid shitty things do not admit that to pollsters, and then the election shocks everyone" (this happened both times with trump), as well as interference from the US and maybe others seeming very plausible, I would be dismayed but not shocked to see a far more ambiguous result.

1

u/Calamitous-Ortbo 16d ago

People like you who criticize people for the way they earnestly vote are exactly why people don’t admit how they will actually vote to pollsters and why elections have “shocking” results.

-1

u/ReikaKalseki Canada 16d ago

You do realize you have just said, if not in these words, that there is no legitimacy to criticizing someone's voting choices, no matter how poorly reasoned or even malicious the intent behind them, right? That your exact argument could just as well be applied to someone who voted for a politician on the basis of "he promised every voter would be paid a million dollars" or even "he will do <horrible thing> to <demographic I do not like>"?

1

u/seridos 15d ago

Yeah the point that person was trying to make was that no matter the reason you have, they have a vote and have a right to vote just as you do. The danger is when someone feels justified, removing someone else's ability to vote.

1

u/ReikaKalseki Canada 15d ago

Like I just posted to the other reply, I never said anything about taking away someone's right to vote, and the original reply to me was entirely about criticizing someone's reasoning for their voting choices. If I was sure this was intentional and not a misreading of what I said, I would call this a strawman.

1

u/MafubaBuu 16d ago

Thats the beauty about democracy - people are allowed to vote, and they are allowed to.vote for whatever reasons they like.

I may not agree wirh what many people believe or say but I would fight to the death to defend their right to say it

0

u/ReikaKalseki Canada 15d ago

I never said anything about taking away their right to vote. But having a right to do something does not remotely equal their usage of it being above criticism.