I had half a mind to keep comments closed on this one. I know crazy bait when I see it. I've left them open. But I expect good behaviour. No warning shots today, friends. Be nice.
I really enjoyed the article. I have been wondering why all these restrictions would apply to Alberta but not Quebec? This kind of answered my question.
I'm sure the commentary on this one will be thoughtful and measured.
To be honest, even as a non-Alberta-separatist Ontarian who wants and needs Alberta to remain in Canada, this was hard to read and a cringe all the way through. It was equal parts smug and tone-deaf, triumphantly obsessing over legal technicalities and utterly failing to grasp the larger picture.
It is not a good thing that the separatism petition was struck down by the courts based on the usual arguments about "First Nations" and the "duty to consult". Some commenters elsewhere - again, not pro-separatism for the most part - have already noted that this plays right into separatist hands by making them victims of more top-down federal constitutional nonsense. They are now plucky outlaws who were denied their democratic rights through sneaky technical malfeasance, a system stacked against them, and - fair or not - activist judges appointed by their province's worst enemies.
So this development will more likely encourage Alberta separatism than defeat it. When it was just about to do that on its own and by its own terms.
To borrow terminology from the article, you don't fight bullshit with more bullshit, and treating Natives like magic forest elves with different rights than the rest of us and veto over majority democratic rights is, sad to say, complete bullshit.
The analysis about Quebec is also too clever by half. Nothing about this will change the situation regarding separatism in Quebec because separatism in Quebec isn't a real thing. That province will never, 100% not in a million years, separate from Canada, so they don't have to deal with the legal technicalities so savoured by the author. It's a perpetual inchoate threat that nobody seriously wants to follow through on. They get everything they want in Canada without the burdens of becoming a separate country. An independent Quebec would be far poorer, and would be speaking English as a de facto first language in a generation.
The claim that Indigenous consultation is merely a “technicality” or an anti-democratic obstruction shows your complete lack of understanding of both Canadian constitutional law and the historical foundations of the country itself. First Nations are not outside the constitutional order; they are explicitly recognized within it. As Clarke Ries points out, Section 35 of the Constitution affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, and Canadian courts have CONSISTENTLY held that governments have a duty to consult Indigenous peoples when decisions may significantly affect those rights. This is not a special privilege invented by activist judges, but a constitutional obligation flowing from treaties and from the Crown’s own legal commitments.
I point out that the consultation does not amount to an automatic veto. Courts have repeatedly distinguished between a duty to consult and a guaranteed power to block government action. Governments remain capable of proceeding in many circumstances, but they must first engage meaningfully with Indigenous communities whose rights may be affected. In practice, this principle reflects a basic democratic reality: constitutional democracies do not operate on pure majority rule alone. Majorities cannot simply vote away entrenched rights whenever doing so becomes politically convenient. The same principle protects freedom of religion, language rights, and provincial jurisdiction. Indigenous rights are part of that same constitutional structure.
There is also a deeper contradiction in the separatist argument itself. Alberta separatists often insist that Ottawa must respect provincial autonomy, constitutional limits, and the principle of consent. Yet some then argue that Indigenous nations within Alberta should have no meaningful constitutional standing when their own treaties, territories, and political status are implicated. If self-determination and consent matter for Alberta, it becomes difficult to argue they suddenly cease to matter for First Nations. Many Indigenous communities entered treaty relationships with the Crown long before Alberta existed as a province, and they did not sign those agreements on the understanding that their constitutional position could later be altered by a provincial referendum alone.
Finally, dismissing consultation as “bullshit” may be emotionally satisfying rhetoric, but it is politically shortsighted. Canada’s constitutional order rests heavily on negotiated legitimacy rather than sheer force or majoritarianism. Ignoring Indigenous treaty rights in a matter as profound as potential provincial secession would not strengthen democracy; it would weaken the credibility of the legal and constitutional system that separatists themselves often claim to defend. A country cannot insist that constitutional protections matter only when they benefit one side of a political argument.
Treating citizens and groups differently from one another based on ethnicity and other immutable characteristics is one of Canada's greatest failings and perhaps the one most likely to lead to the nation's demise in one way or another.
The Charter and the various decisions of the Supreme Court are not tablets from heaven and should not be confused with sources of fundamental truth. This includes the rhetorical trick of assuming that they "affirm" inherent laws of the universe. I think believing this makes the same mistake as the article's author does. Problems eating away at society and making it non-functional and ungovernable don't go away because we are reassured that they are technically legal.
"Fundamental truth" according to whom? You and your fellow separatist travelers?
There's only the constitution and the Charter. That you don't like the way they constrain your ambition does not make them irrelevant. All the rest of what you wrote is jazz hands.
You wrote that the Charter is not a source of fundamental truth. In your next post you claim not to know fundamental truths. If you know nothing of them, how can you claim the Charter is no such thing?
> Treating citizens and groups differently from one another based on ethnicity ...
This has nothing to do with ethnicity. The right to consultation comes from the treaties negotiated by this particular group. The existence of those treaties is a very pertinent "immutable fact".
"To be honest, even as a non-Alberta-separatist Ontarian who wants and needs Alberta to remain in Canada, this was hard to read and a cringe all the way through."
No kidding - and that's despite the fact his legal analysis may be correct, which is quite an accomplishment. The measured analysis of Dwight Newman in the National Post staking out a contrary position on the merits was at least as enlightening and far easier to read. It also made the point to which you refer (i.e. that this may play into the hands of a large number of Albertan separatists who will happily reach for the tin-foil hats). I mean, the law is the law and you want the correct legal decision regardless of the consequences - nothing is worse than a results-oriented court. But one can acknowledge that the decision was likely correct while noting that at the same time and in the big/practical picture, the decision may also cause more harm than it has prevented. Spiking the football with so much bile in these circumstances seems to miss this larger point. YMMV as the kids say.
I'm confused why you consider it a de facto veto. Why not just consult? In this case, it would presumably have shown the lack of seriousness of the movement, but expected a good faith separatist movement to engage with all aspects of what that would entail seems reasonable.
Everyone knows that Quebec can have another referendum any time it wants without aboriginal consultation and, if the secessionists win, out they will go.
Using biased judges and procedural games to prove to disaffected Albertans that there is no peaceful democratic solution to their exploitation by Ottawa may not turn out to be the clever move Laurentians with manifest contempt for Albertans think.
We will soon find out if that contempt is warranted, or if the Albertans push on.
Please! Nobody in the east has a "manifest contempt for Albertans". It's a myth propagated by successive incompetent Conservative governments in Alberta looking for a scapegoat. And these rulings make it clear that the same rules apply to Quebec. A successful referendum is just the beginning of negotiations with the federal government and all the other provinces to have no obligation to go along with what separatists want.
One of my favourite little bits of polling in recent years was a poll that asked Canadians living in every province what their favourite province was ... but they couldn't choose their own.
We do need to see this kind of articles, though. They help to enhance the depth of the picture. A separatist reads this article and sends it on to someone, with comment, "here is another reason why we need to separate".
Tongue in cheek, it will solve my Clarke problem. Because then he will live in an independent Alberta. He can always furiously advocate for rewriting the Canadian constitution.
Well it may come to that if the aspirations of people are continually frustrated by a French elite written “lipstick on a pig” charter that provides no human rights only permissions to those who behave. Calling something “constitutional” and “ legal” doesn’t make it right.
Wow Sassy!!! Beautifully written and entertaining. Very nicely lays out how dishonest and two faced Smith has been with Albertans and how she has been the true leader of separation. I don’t love that it came down to FN’s to stop this thing for now but we’ll take it. Don’t for a second think Smith will slow down though. She desperately needs the nutty right wingers to keep her job.
And still NO public enquiry about a catastrophic data leak of sensitive information, or the largest corruption case in AB history with corrupt care. She cares only about herself and her tinfoil crowd.
As you are at it, are you paying attention to what that corrupt dung heap that calls itself the "Liberal" party, increasingly dictatorial, is doing to Canada ???
It does have direct bearing on Alberta separatism.
I have stated it more than once, Wilson, Roth and their band of separatists need to do like some in Quebec, form a AB Separation Party with a platform on what a independent AB looks like and a leader that can articulate their vision .....and run candidates in a Provincial Election. Enough hiding out in the UCP....Wilson, Roth et a should show some guts and standby their beliefs in an election.
An unusually high level of snark and name-calling in this article. That's a shame, as some good points are buried amongst all the vitriol. It's a pattern with some of The Line coverage and commentary of late and it's not good.
As the article mentions, over 1/4 of Albertans have separatist/secessionist leanings. That's an awful lot of our fellow citizens. They are not evil people - for the most part they are everyday Albertans who, as I do, love this country but have serious concerns with the treatment of Alberta and its place within federation. They are traitors not.
This country may have reached a stage where its regional settlements are no longer compatible with one another. What kept Canada together before may now be what pulls it apart.
To be clear - I’m a federalist. But it is interesting to consider if our constitutional hand wringing survives contact with possible trajectories.
consider a chain of events:
Smith acknowledges the result; calls a plebescite to let Albertans ‘have a voice’ that is being suppressed by ‘activist judges’
Carney refuses to change or remove laws deemed unconstitutional by the courts, preferring his ‘come hither to my mpo on bent knee’ central planning approach.
The plebiscite passes. Or not. Trump, concerned with the ensuing instability / significant American strategic interests in the midst of an oil crisis / correct assertion that Canada is standing in the way of continental and allied energy security, declares Alberta an American protectorate; brings in a couple of divisions
Rail blockades met by ice and not the rcmp.
Energy pipelines proliferate to US ports; Trump demands a land bridge to the Alaska panhandle. Trump en route to his vision of greater North America.
How much is any of this gloating worth in that scenario, well written as it is?
This is probably “Plan A” now for some of the more hardcore secessionists.
People who care passionately about a cause don’t just drop it because some set of rules says that there’s no path to it. They work to skirt the rules, or make the rules irrelevant. Fastest path is to be a fifth column to help the Trump Administration break up Canada.
Of course, this only works if the real goal is to join the United States, not to be an independent sovereign Alberta. But I don’t believe for a second that even the hardcore secessionists truly want to be a standalone sovereign country. I think they want to join the United States, mostly.
If the “separation act” or whatever it’s called calls for negotiations with First Nations and the other provinces after a successful vote for independence, why not have the vote and do the “consultations” - if the vote for independence succeeds - at that time? If the vote doesn’t succeed, then no consultation is needed. Does the Ottawa government not really believe its own statements - trumpeted by its purchased mass media - that 70 percent of Albertans want to remain in Confederation? Why are they so afraid of that they spend substantial amounts of non aboriginal taxpayers money on lawfare using First Nation proxies to frustrate people’s ambition for freedom and independence?
Who sends billions every year to First Nations? There was a really well dressed white legal dude acting as the spokesperson. Was it pro bono? Did the First Nations run a Go fund me campaigns? Were cellphones not working on the reserves or whatever they’re called? Sorry but I have a hard time believing the Feds had nothing to do with it. They would be neglecting their duties if they ignored the situation. IMHO of course…
This is triumphant dribble regarding what is perceived “Legal” by an individual. Take a lap, but it pales in comparison to the reality that up to 30% of a province would feel better about constructing a new uncharted world… than live in the clutches of their current confines.
If you listened to Gerson's interview with the pollster a few months ago you'll know that the hard separatist base is actually about 13%. Those are the people that still want to separate once all the downsides and costs have been explained.
I think there are likely soft separatists who want to stay in Canada but are tired of how Alberta is treated. I would be interested in polling data for them. This isn't going away.
Hmmm. It seems to me that "soft separatists who want to stay in Canada" are not separatists at all but disgruntled Albertans who have issues that can be dealt with within the current framework of the country. Alberta could always try a better premier.
Well I did see that …. And my thought was 13 % is on the low end. And as an ex pat of Alberta and a somewhat Federalist…I can tell you…if you asked my opinion on this subject it would see saw between “ yup , separate from those arrogant Eastern Liberal bastards who have curtailed, and tried to manipulate and control our resources, wealth potential, and cultural way of life”…… with…..
“Ya this could be a tough row to hoe and is out of reach so let’s try to make it work”
So ya, it’s an emotional issue to say the least!!! And RETRIBUTION is a strong one.
I cringe when I see cheerleaders, and neigh sayers of the impending collapse of someone’s aspiration, regardless.
The main purpose of the courts, when you get right down to it, is to force bullshit into contact with reality. This is inconvenient for bullshit artists, disconcerting for bullshit believers, and an immense relief for the rest of us.
END QUOTE
And yet, Danielle Smith, who did not say that she was campaigning on behalf of independence for Alberta, and claims to be a "federalist", is still spinning the bullshit out. ("We believe these decisions were incorrect in law").
I wish that Albertans would act on that recall legislation that is in place to put her in her place.
She is playing a dangerous game, akin to the one that David Cameron played in the UK, for political reasons. She could destroy our country by indulging in this stupid political game of hers.
Let's also acknowledge that she is being willfully ignorant of the extent to which Donald Trump's most rabid supporters are stoking this. To pretend otherwise is simply delusional and dishonest.
The Alberta case may have implications for future Quebec referendums, but the article likely overstates how decisive those implications are. One important distinction the author raises is the difference between a government directly calling a referendum and a citizen-driven petition process that legally compels the government to act once certain thresholds are met. In Alberta, separatists attempted to use the province’s Citizen Initiative Act as a bottom-up mechanism to force a referendum onto the political agenda while allowing the provincial government to maintain some distance from the effort. However, the courts appear to have concluded that because the process still relied heavily on state machinery — Elections Alberta, statutory obligations, and legally mandated consequences — it constituted governmental conduct capable of affecting Indigenous treaty rights. That, in turn, triggered the constitutional duty to consult.
This timing issue is central. The First Nations applicants argued successfully that consultation could not simply occur after a referendum, because by that point the province would already be politically and legally committed to implementing the result. Justice Leonard accepted the argument that consultation must occur before the “train leaves the station,” so to speak. The ruling therefore was not necessarily about giving Indigenous nations a veto over separatism, but about ensuring that constitutionally protected treaty rights are meaningfully considered before governments embark on a process that could fundamentally alter those rights.
The article then argues that the same logic could apply in Quebec. In fact, one could argue the consultation obligation would be even clearer there, since Quebec referendums have historically been initiated directly by the provincial government rather than through citizen petitions. However, the legal situation is still far from settled. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled in the "1998 Secession Reference", that a referendum itself does not create legal independence; it merely creates a political mandate to negotiate. The unresolved constitutional question is therefore not whether Indigenous rights matter, they clearly do, but when the duty to consult becomes legally required: before a referendum, during negotiations, or only once concrete constitutional changes are proposed.
Ultimately, the Alberta rulings probably make future secession movements in Canada more procedurally difficult and constitutionally complicated, particularly where Indigenous treaty rights are implicated. But it is too early to conclude, as the article does, that Quebec separatism has been permanently “wrecked.” Higher courts would likely need to weigh in before such a sweeping constitutional principle becomes firmly established across Canada.
While the author attempts to be too cute by half, I also believe that leavers are delusional if they think the referendum will ever pass. Have they checked the price of an F35 lately, a fleet of which is dereguir for any nation today?
What i take isue with, is the author's characterization of Premiere Smith as a separatist. She is a politician and not the first to try and burn the candle at both ends. Do you not think she is smart enough to have already figured out that the separatist option will fail? Knowing that, being sympathetic to the leavers while fingers crossed and publicly stating that Alberta has a place in the Confederation, allows her, next fall, to say I did my best for you.
Well, as the author explained, she has nowhere to hide now. Either she unmasks and hands the separatists their referendum, or she goes mute and risks their wrath. Let's see what happens with this supposedly imminent carbon pricing deal and see how that goes.
I certainly understand why you hope so. It'd be awfully inconvenient to your cause if Carney didn't play so willingly into your narrative as Trudeau did, and actually took steps that supported Alberta's competitiveness. I hear Carney and Smith are making a joint announcement tomorrow. Wonder what they'll say?
I had half a mind to keep comments closed on this one. I know crazy bait when I see it. I've left them open. But I expect good behaviour. No warning shots today, friends. Be nice.
I really enjoyed the article. I have been wondering why all these restrictions would apply to Alberta but not Quebec? This kind of answered my question.
Good thing you kept it open, even with a warning. This is an OK practice. Do not become like CBC.
I'm sure the commentary on this one will be thoughtful and measured.
To be honest, even as a non-Alberta-separatist Ontarian who wants and needs Alberta to remain in Canada, this was hard to read and a cringe all the way through. It was equal parts smug and tone-deaf, triumphantly obsessing over legal technicalities and utterly failing to grasp the larger picture.
It is not a good thing that the separatism petition was struck down by the courts based on the usual arguments about "First Nations" and the "duty to consult". Some commenters elsewhere - again, not pro-separatism for the most part - have already noted that this plays right into separatist hands by making them victims of more top-down federal constitutional nonsense. They are now plucky outlaws who were denied their democratic rights through sneaky technical malfeasance, a system stacked against them, and - fair or not - activist judges appointed by their province's worst enemies.
So this development will more likely encourage Alberta separatism than defeat it. When it was just about to do that on its own and by its own terms.
To borrow terminology from the article, you don't fight bullshit with more bullshit, and treating Natives like magic forest elves with different rights than the rest of us and veto over majority democratic rights is, sad to say, complete bullshit.
The analysis about Quebec is also too clever by half. Nothing about this will change the situation regarding separatism in Quebec because separatism in Quebec isn't a real thing. That province will never, 100% not in a million years, separate from Canada, so they don't have to deal with the legal technicalities so savoured by the author. It's a perpetual inchoate threat that nobody seriously wants to follow through on. They get everything they want in Canada without the burdens of becoming a separate country. An independent Quebec would be far poorer, and would be speaking English as a de facto first language in a generation.
The claim that Indigenous consultation is merely a “technicality” or an anti-democratic obstruction shows your complete lack of understanding of both Canadian constitutional law and the historical foundations of the country itself. First Nations are not outside the constitutional order; they are explicitly recognized within it. As Clarke Ries points out, Section 35 of the Constitution affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights, and Canadian courts have CONSISTENTLY held that governments have a duty to consult Indigenous peoples when decisions may significantly affect those rights. This is not a special privilege invented by activist judges, but a constitutional obligation flowing from treaties and from the Crown’s own legal commitments.
I point out that the consultation does not amount to an automatic veto. Courts have repeatedly distinguished between a duty to consult and a guaranteed power to block government action. Governments remain capable of proceeding in many circumstances, but they must first engage meaningfully with Indigenous communities whose rights may be affected. In practice, this principle reflects a basic democratic reality: constitutional democracies do not operate on pure majority rule alone. Majorities cannot simply vote away entrenched rights whenever doing so becomes politically convenient. The same principle protects freedom of religion, language rights, and provincial jurisdiction. Indigenous rights are part of that same constitutional structure.
There is also a deeper contradiction in the separatist argument itself. Alberta separatists often insist that Ottawa must respect provincial autonomy, constitutional limits, and the principle of consent. Yet some then argue that Indigenous nations within Alberta should have no meaningful constitutional standing when their own treaties, territories, and political status are implicated. If self-determination and consent matter for Alberta, it becomes difficult to argue they suddenly cease to matter for First Nations. Many Indigenous communities entered treaty relationships with the Crown long before Alberta existed as a province, and they did not sign those agreements on the understanding that their constitutional position could later be altered by a provincial referendum alone.
Finally, dismissing consultation as “bullshit” may be emotionally satisfying rhetoric, but it is politically shortsighted. Canada’s constitutional order rests heavily on negotiated legitimacy rather than sheer force or majoritarianism. Ignoring Indigenous treaty rights in a matter as profound as potential provincial secession would not strengthen democracy; it would weaken the credibility of the legal and constitutional system that separatists themselves often claim to defend. A country cannot insist that constitutional protections matter only when they benefit one side of a political argument.
Treating citizens and groups differently from one another based on ethnicity and other immutable characteristics is one of Canada's greatest failings and perhaps the one most likely to lead to the nation's demise in one way or another.
The Charter and the various decisions of the Supreme Court are not tablets from heaven and should not be confused with sources of fundamental truth. This includes the rhetorical trick of assuming that they "affirm" inherent laws of the universe. I think believing this makes the same mistake as the article's author does. Problems eating away at society and making it non-functional and ungovernable don't go away because we are reassured that they are technically legal.
"Fundamental truth" according to whom? You and your fellow separatist travelers?
There's only the constitution and the Charter. That you don't like the way they constrain your ambition does not make them irrelevant. All the rest of what you wrote is jazz hands.
Not an Albertan or a separatist. I don't claim to know fundamental truths.
There are however a lot of problems with the Charter and other elements that collectively form our Constitution.
I don't accept blindly deferring to the framers and interpreters of these documents to terminate all thought and argument.
You wrote that the Charter is not a source of fundamental truth. In your next post you claim not to know fundamental truths. If you know nothing of them, how can you claim the Charter is no such thing?
Jazz hands.
> Treating citizens and groups differently from one another based on ethnicity ...
This has nothing to do with ethnicity. The right to consultation comes from the treaties negotiated by this particular group. The existence of those treaties is a very pertinent "immutable fact".
"To be honest, even as a non-Alberta-separatist Ontarian who wants and needs Alberta to remain in Canada, this was hard to read and a cringe all the way through."
No kidding - and that's despite the fact his legal analysis may be correct, which is quite an accomplishment. The measured analysis of Dwight Newman in the National Post staking out a contrary position on the merits was at least as enlightening and far easier to read. It also made the point to which you refer (i.e. that this may play into the hands of a large number of Albertan separatists who will happily reach for the tin-foil hats). I mean, the law is the law and you want the correct legal decision regardless of the consequences - nothing is worse than a results-oriented court. But one can acknowledge that the decision was likely correct while noting that at the same time and in the big/practical picture, the decision may also cause more harm than it has prevented. Spiking the football with so much bile in these circumstances seems to miss this larger point. YMMV as the kids say.
I’ve lived in Quebec. No francophone believes that.
That being said, I do agree that there is danger saying First Nations have veto privilege. Duty to consult has become a de facto veto.
I'm confused why you consider it a de facto veto. Why not just consult? In this case, it would presumably have shown the lack of seriousness of the movement, but expected a good faith separatist movement to engage with all aspects of what that would entail seems reasonable.
Everyone knows that Quebec can have another referendum any time it wants without aboriginal consultation and, if the secessionists win, out they will go.
Using biased judges and procedural games to prove to disaffected Albertans that there is no peaceful democratic solution to their exploitation by Ottawa may not turn out to be the clever move Laurentians with manifest contempt for Albertans think.
We will soon find out if that contempt is warranted, or if the Albertans push on.
Please! Nobody in the east has a "manifest contempt for Albertans". It's a myth propagated by successive incompetent Conservative governments in Alberta looking for a scapegoat. And these rulings make it clear that the same rules apply to Quebec. A successful referendum is just the beginning of negotiations with the federal government and all the other provinces to have no obligation to go along with what separatists want.
One of my favourite little bits of polling in recent years was a poll that asked Canadians living in every province what their favourite province was ... but they couldn't choose their own.
Ontario chose Alberta.
While the tone is a tad self-inflated/congratulatory the article does cover the KB decisions, reasons and impacts clearly.
Thanks for writing it.
It's a bit silly to publish an article which is manifestly dripping with contempt and then claim it doesn't exist.
It's a bit silly to claim I or anyone else claimed that. I'm happy to defend positions I've actually taken. Get back to me when you want to try that.
We do need to see this kind of articles, though. They help to enhance the depth of the picture. A separatist reads this article and sends it on to someone, with comment, "here is another reason why we need to separate".
Alas, separation won't solve your Clarke problem. He's a Calgarian.
Tongue in cheek, it will solve my Clarke problem. Because then he will live in an independent Alberta. He can always furiously advocate for rewriting the Canadian constitution.
Is the implication here that Albertans will wage an FLQ-esque insurgency if they don’t get a referendum?
I doubt it. But, civil wars have been fought on this continent to great pain and destruction.
Perhaps allowing democracy to proceed to the people's desired end would be a better way. I think both judges got it wrong.
Well it may come to that if the aspirations of people are continually frustrated by a French elite written “lipstick on a pig” charter that provides no human rights only permissions to those who behave. Calling something “constitutional” and “ legal” doesn’t make it right.
Why bother with a civil war when you can you have a simple referendum ? The heck with the activist judges and they toxic biased BS.
I hope that Smith will have enough sense to hold a referendum anyway, with or without judges' approval.
It looks like if she does not, she will be walking the plank.
Wow Sassy!!! Beautifully written and entertaining. Very nicely lays out how dishonest and two faced Smith has been with Albertans and how she has been the true leader of separation. I don’t love that it came down to FN’s to stop this thing for now but we’ll take it. Don’t for a second think Smith will slow down though. She desperately needs the nutty right wingers to keep her job.
And still NO public enquiry about a catastrophic data leak of sensitive information, or the largest corruption case in AB history with corrupt care. She cares only about herself and her tinfoil crowd.
As you are at it, are you paying attention to what that corrupt dung heap that calls itself the "Liberal" party, increasingly dictatorial, is doing to Canada ???
It does have direct bearing on Alberta separatism.
I have stated it more than once, Wilson, Roth and their band of separatists need to do like some in Quebec, form a AB Separation Party with a platform on what a independent AB looks like and a leader that can articulate their vision .....and run candidates in a Provincial Election. Enough hiding out in the UCP....Wilson, Roth et a should show some guts and standby their beliefs in an election.
Gosh. Speaking of “devastatingly well-written”!
An unusually high level of snark and name-calling in this article. That's a shame, as some good points are buried amongst all the vitriol. It's a pattern with some of The Line coverage and commentary of late and it's not good.
As the article mentions, over 1/4 of Albertans have separatist/secessionist leanings. That's an awful lot of our fellow citizens. They are not evil people - for the most part they are everyday Albertans who, as I do, love this country but have serious concerns with the treatment of Alberta and its place within federation. They are traitors not.
This country may have reached a stage where its regional settlements are no longer compatible with one another. What kept Canada together before may now be what pulls it apart.
In addition to a duty to consult FN, there is a duty to respect the rights of Albertans who have no desire to be wrested from Canada against our will.
This was an excellent read.
A wonderfully written peice.
To be clear - I’m a federalist. But it is interesting to consider if our constitutional hand wringing survives contact with possible trajectories.
consider a chain of events:
Smith acknowledges the result; calls a plebescite to let Albertans ‘have a voice’ that is being suppressed by ‘activist judges’
Carney refuses to change or remove laws deemed unconstitutional by the courts, preferring his ‘come hither to my mpo on bent knee’ central planning approach.
The plebiscite passes. Or not. Trump, concerned with the ensuing instability / significant American strategic interests in the midst of an oil crisis / correct assertion that Canada is standing in the way of continental and allied energy security, declares Alberta an American protectorate; brings in a couple of divisions
Rail blockades met by ice and not the rcmp.
Energy pipelines proliferate to US ports; Trump demands a land bridge to the Alaska panhandle. Trump en route to his vision of greater North America.
How much is any of this gloating worth in that scenario, well written as it is?
This is probably “Plan A” now for some of the more hardcore secessionists.
People who care passionately about a cause don’t just drop it because some set of rules says that there’s no path to it. They work to skirt the rules, or make the rules irrelevant. Fastest path is to be a fifth column to help the Trump Administration break up Canada.
Of course, this only works if the real goal is to join the United States, not to be an independent sovereign Alberta. But I don’t believe for a second that even the hardcore secessionists truly want to be a standalone sovereign country. I think they want to join the United States, mostly.
Wrong. Separatist said openly they do not want to trade one ignorant overbearing capital for another ignorant overbearing capital.
I don’t think they’re that naive. It’s a landlocked province whose economy depends on getting fossil fuels to market. Cannot survive on its own.
I will just say that you are spectacularly misreading the "room".
Spare us "landlocked ". If it gets nasty, AB cuts Canada off from BC, NWT, YK.
Entirely feasible.
If the “separation act” or whatever it’s called calls for negotiations with First Nations and the other provinces after a successful vote for independence, why not have the vote and do the “consultations” - if the vote for independence succeeds - at that time? If the vote doesn’t succeed, then no consultation is needed. Does the Ottawa government not really believe its own statements - trumpeted by its purchased mass media - that 70 percent of Albertans want to remain in Confederation? Why are they so afraid of that they spend substantial amounts of non aboriginal taxpayers money on lawfare using First Nation proxies to frustrate people’s ambition for freedom and independence?
Whatever its merits or lack thereof, the federal government has not been directing, nor involved with, this lawsuit initiated by Indigenous Albertans.
Who sends billions every year to First Nations? There was a really well dressed white legal dude acting as the spokesperson. Was it pro bono? Did the First Nations run a Go fund me campaigns? Were cellphones not working on the reserves or whatever they’re called? Sorry but I have a hard time believing the Feds had nothing to do with it. They would be neglecting their duties if they ignored the situation. IMHO of course…
This is exactly what the article was about. Maybe give it a quick re-read?
If the federalists were confident they would win a referendum, they wouldn't resort to these tricks.
This is triumphant dribble regarding what is perceived “Legal” by an individual. Take a lap, but it pales in comparison to the reality that up to 30% of a province would feel better about constructing a new uncharted world… than live in the clutches of their current confines.
Sorta sounds like crabs in a bucket….
If you listened to Gerson's interview with the pollster a few months ago you'll know that the hard separatist base is actually about 13%. Those are the people that still want to separate once all the downsides and costs have been explained.
I think there are likely soft separatists who want to stay in Canada but are tired of how Alberta is treated. I would be interested in polling data for them. This isn't going away.
Hmmm. It seems to me that "soft separatists who want to stay in Canada" are not separatists at all but disgruntled Albertans who have issues that can be dealt with within the current framework of the country. Alberta could always try a better premier.
Well I did see that …. And my thought was 13 % is on the low end. And as an ex pat of Alberta and a somewhat Federalist…I can tell you…if you asked my opinion on this subject it would see saw between “ yup , separate from those arrogant Eastern Liberal bastards who have curtailed, and tried to manipulate and control our resources, wealth potential, and cultural way of life”…… with…..
“Ya this could be a tough row to hoe and is out of reach so let’s try to make it work”
So ya, it’s an emotional issue to say the least!!! And RETRIBUTION is a strong one.
I cringe when I see cheerleaders, and neigh sayers of the impending collapse of someone’s aspiration, regardless.
QUOTE
The main purpose of the courts, when you get right down to it, is to force bullshit into contact with reality. This is inconvenient for bullshit artists, disconcerting for bullshit believers, and an immense relief for the rest of us.
END QUOTE
And yet, Danielle Smith, who did not say that she was campaigning on behalf of independence for Alberta, and claims to be a "federalist", is still spinning the bullshit out. ("We believe these decisions were incorrect in law").
I wish that Albertans would act on that recall legislation that is in place to put her in her place.
She is playing a dangerous game, akin to the one that David Cameron played in the UK, for political reasons. She could destroy our country by indulging in this stupid political game of hers.
Let's also acknowledge that she is being willfully ignorant of the extent to which Donald Trump's most rabid supporters are stoking this. To pretend otherwise is simply delusional and dishonest.
I'm keeping my response brief.
My lord man - reading your dispatches teaches me so much. Ever. Single. Time.
I am proud to support you and The Line.
why cant you all be like debbie
Because we sometimes strongly disagree with you.
That's the problem I'm flagging, yes.
#daymade :)
The Alberta case may have implications for future Quebec referendums, but the article likely overstates how decisive those implications are. One important distinction the author raises is the difference between a government directly calling a referendum and a citizen-driven petition process that legally compels the government to act once certain thresholds are met. In Alberta, separatists attempted to use the province’s Citizen Initiative Act as a bottom-up mechanism to force a referendum onto the political agenda while allowing the provincial government to maintain some distance from the effort. However, the courts appear to have concluded that because the process still relied heavily on state machinery — Elections Alberta, statutory obligations, and legally mandated consequences — it constituted governmental conduct capable of affecting Indigenous treaty rights. That, in turn, triggered the constitutional duty to consult.
This timing issue is central. The First Nations applicants argued successfully that consultation could not simply occur after a referendum, because by that point the province would already be politically and legally committed to implementing the result. Justice Leonard accepted the argument that consultation must occur before the “train leaves the station,” so to speak. The ruling therefore was not necessarily about giving Indigenous nations a veto over separatism, but about ensuring that constitutionally protected treaty rights are meaningfully considered before governments embark on a process that could fundamentally alter those rights.
The article then argues that the same logic could apply in Quebec. In fact, one could argue the consultation obligation would be even clearer there, since Quebec referendums have historically been initiated directly by the provincial government rather than through citizen petitions. However, the legal situation is still far from settled. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled in the "1998 Secession Reference", that a referendum itself does not create legal independence; it merely creates a political mandate to negotiate. The unresolved constitutional question is therefore not whether Indigenous rights matter, they clearly do, but when the duty to consult becomes legally required: before a referendum, during negotiations, or only once concrete constitutional changes are proposed.
Ultimately, the Alberta rulings probably make future secession movements in Canada more procedurally difficult and constitutionally complicated, particularly where Indigenous treaty rights are implicated. But it is too early to conclude, as the article does, that Quebec separatism has been permanently “wrecked.” Higher courts would likely need to weigh in before such a sweeping constitutional principle becomes firmly established across Canada.
While the author attempts to be too cute by half, I also believe that leavers are delusional if they think the referendum will ever pass. Have they checked the price of an F35 lately, a fleet of which is dereguir for any nation today?
What i take isue with, is the author's characterization of Premiere Smith as a separatist. She is a politician and not the first to try and burn the candle at both ends. Do you not think she is smart enough to have already figured out that the separatist option will fail? Knowing that, being sympathetic to the leavers while fingers crossed and publicly stating that Alberta has a place in the Confederation, allows her, next fall, to say I did my best for you.
Hilariously, wikipedia refers to her as an Alberta separatist in its opening line about her.
Well, as the author explained, she has nowhere to hide now. Either she unmasks and hands the separatists their referendum, or she goes mute and risks their wrath. Let's see what happens with this supposedly imminent carbon pricing deal and see how that goes.
The "deal" is a sham.
I certainly understand why you hope so. It'd be awfully inconvenient to your cause if Carney didn't play so willingly into your narrative as Trudeau did, and actually took steps that supported Alberta's competitiveness. I hear Carney and Smith are making a joint announcement tomorrow. Wonder what they'll say?