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.
You once talked about how our problems are not due to stupidity, but by 8s who think they are 10s. I would counter that the Alberta issue is essentially 5s fighting 8s, with both thinking themselves to be 10s...
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.
> 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".
You can't run a country while having to negotiate with 600+ "nations" while also supporting most of them financially. Canada can't afford $40B per year in perpetuity for never-ending "reconciliation" which was supposed to be an end but instead became the beginning of a big-business grievance-based industry that mostly benefits lawyers.
Your argument confuses two very different concepts, that being equality before the law and the existence of distinct constitutional obligations. Canada does not recognize Indigenous rights because of race in the abstract, but because Indigenous nations entered into specific historical and legal relationships with the Crown through treaties and constitutional arrangements. Those obligations are political and constitutional in nature, not simply ethnic preferences. A treaty is not rendered meaningless because the people who signed it happened to belong to a particular group.
I will agree with you that the Charter and Supreme Court decisions are not sacred tablets from heaven. Constitutional law is a human institution, open to criticism and revision. But that cuts both ways. Rejecting the idea that courts are infallible does not automatically mean constitutional protections are illegitimate or socially destructive. Every stable democracy depends on some framework that places limits on majority power and protects foundational agreements from temporary political passions. In Canada, that includes federalism, minority language protections, provincial jurisdiction, and Indigenous treaty rights.
The deeper problem with your position is that it treats all distinctions in law as inherently unjust. But modern states make distinctions constantly. Provinces have powers municipalities do not. Francophone minorities have language protections Anglophones may not. Religious freedoms protect some practices and not others. Veterans, refugees, and Indigenous communities all occupy distinct legal categories in different contexts. The real question is not whether distinctions exist, but whether there is a principled constitutional and historical basis for them.
It is also historically incomplete to frame Indigenous constitutional status as some modern ideological invention imposed on an otherwise unified country. Many treaties were signed before the 1867 Confederation and therefore prior to the Canadian state itself. Indigenous nations were not simply immigrant communities folded into an existing constitutional order; in many cases they were parties to the creation and expansion of that order. Ignoring those agreements in the name of abstract uniformity would not create equality; it would amount to retroactively voiding commitments that Canada itself relied upon to establish sovereignty over vast territories.
Finally, legality and legitimacy are not identical, but neither are they opposites. A society does not become “ungovernable” merely because constitutional rights constrain what majorities can do in moments of political frustration. In fact, constitutional democracies are specifically designed to channel conflict through legal institutions rather than through raw political force. The alternative is not neutral fairness; it is a system where whichever faction holds temporary power can redefine rights and obligations at will. That may feel emotionally satisfying in the short term, but historically it has produced far more instability than constitutional pluralism ever has.
"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?
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.
"Duty to consult" is a subjective moving target. It's specifically designed to give dumb people the semblance of justice while in reality it's just a tool of legal expediency to use as a judicial veto.
To be clear, this was not just a failure to consult. The separatism petition was *also* struck down on Wednesday because at the time it was advanced, the legislation it was advanced under didn't allow unconstitutional referendum questions to be put to the public.
Elections Alberta ruled back in December that the petition's question was unconstitutional and rejected it. The court ruled on Wednesday that the new petition was the same as the one struck down in December, and that the legislation didn't allow a petition that had already been rejected to proceed.
The Indigenous aren't "magic forest elves", they're signatories to treaties that facilitated the peaceful, profitable settlement and growth of this province. They do actually have different rights than the rest of us. That's not bullshit, that's explicitly stated in our country's constitution. This is, respectfully, a "facts don't care about your feelings" situation, and the courts are here to deliver those facts to you.
As for Quebec, separatist sentiment is running about as hot as it currently is in Alberta. If Quebec secession shouldn't be taken seriously, neither should Alberta secession. We don't have to cater to the plucky outlaws, we can (and should) focus on serious issues instead.
Arguing legal technicalities in the face of a province where over 25% of the people actively want to leave Canada is going to go really well. This will surely put the matter to bed.
Due to a series of legal technicalities, the UCP govern Alberta despite 44% of the people actively wanting them not to take office. Somehow the province still functions.
"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 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.
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.
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.
If people who intend to secede from Canada feel wounded by being called traitors, they should really get off the bus, because if they succeed - or even come close enough to success to cause real problems - they're going to be referred to as traitors by Canadians and loyalist Albertans, in journalism, on social media, in the arts, and to their face, for the rest of their lives.
113 years after the end of the American Civil War, famous country musicians were still cutting tracks about the South with lyrics like "Away down South in the land of traitors/Rattlesnakes and alligators".
There is a Balkan saying that it is just as important to have the right enemies as the right friends.
Being called a traitor by those you despise is a badge of honour.
Albertan separatists if anything are guilty of being pussies. They have that Canadian weakness of rather wanting to be polite and legends in their own minds rather than win.
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.
The fact that every single province didn't choose Newfoundland just proves that not enough Canadians have been to Newfoundland. I used to think people in Toronto were pretty nice until I went to St. John's and realized we're complete monsters comparatively.
I'm the author of the article. I am an Albertan. This is where I was raised, where I built my career, and where I intend to live for at least the next several decades. I love this province. My contempt is reserved for separatists.
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.
Great. Then the Alberta separatist can add up all the reasons to separate, create a party dedicated to it, run like-minded candidates in every riding promoting it, and answer to a leader who explicitly campaigns on it.
Perhaps allowing democracy to proceed to the people's desired end would be a better way. I think both judges got it wrong.
END QUOTE
Given all else that the separatists have indulged in, such as doxing prominent political figures and, indeed, the entire population of the province of Alberta without their permission, or hiding behind what has to be one of the poorest excuses for "a federalist premier" that I have ever seen...
... such claims as this seem akin to what Bolsheviks (ironically not the majority) claimed before they imposed their little version of hell on the various peoples of the Soviet Union...
Canadians really need to stop with the high trust bumpkin routine.
A big reason the rest of the world doesn't respect Alberta Separatists is because folks know they are pussies. They don't have the brains or the gumption to actually do something big. Canadians always fall back on words as if they are actions in their own right.
I can see an endgame here where the Americans come in
It isn’t only separatists but Canadians generally. Someone should visit Ottawa ( stopping by Doug Ford’s office on the way) and explain what “All hat and no cattle” means. I’m also getting tired of saying “Bless your heart” to Ontarians I meet after 5 minutes of political discussion.😆😆😆
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.
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 think she should call an election and see what Albertans think. Her polling shows she's about seventeen points ahead. Her opponent Nenshi is a dud. A spectacular dud. I think she will expand her majority should that happen. Get a mandate from voters if you can.
I agree that something as momentous as a referendum on independence requires a proper electoral mandate.
I also agree that Nahid Nenahi has been disappointing, at least in part because of his “consult, consult, consult” approach to leadership, as well as his claim to be non-partisan.
He built a career in municipal politics on those grounds, but I believe that, in order to succeed, he has to get much tougher, and declare in no uncertain terms what he supports, what he resolutely opposes, and who he really is.
TBH, I’m not sure he has it in him.
Who knows? Perhaps there is room for a strongly federalist, middle-ground party, and perhaps he could be the one to stake out that territory.
Again, I doubt it.
Finally, and I probably should have made this point earlier, it is possible that, despite Nenshi’s flaws, Danielle Smith’s equivocation on the “Canada or not” question could trip her up, and with her the UCP.
Mind you, the UCP has been doing its level best to skew riding boundaries and electoral rules to favour itself (just as the Republicans in the United States in particular have done).
Skewing of boundaries for electoral gain happens regularly in Canada, I think. Agree, Nenshi is not the guy. For me the best thing for dippers in AB to do start a new party that is not in any way affiliated or even mistaken for the federal NDP.
What Smith is planning in terms of skewing boundaries has never been done in modern times. She's going for the full cheat by diluting the votes of City dwellers even more than they already are. If you care about democracy at all you should be very much against it. Everyone's vote should count the same no matter where they live.
No, Danielle Smith’s government is not doing something completely unprecedented in Canadian history. That said, it is a sharp contrast to what has been done by governments in the past.
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.
I do not disagree with much of what Mr. Ries has written in this article, and wholeheartedly endorse his criticism of the, well, utter idiocy of the Alberta government in creating this mess, and the even greater idiocy subsequently displayed in the mismanagement of the mess they made. It has been textbook gong show. Just when you thought it could not get any more absurd, there was Elections Alberta waving of Jen Gerson's alert to a situation now being intensely investigated as, well, something not worthy of investigation. You just could not make this stuff up.
All that aside, I was however struck by the inferences of several of the statements in the article.
First, quoting the Supreme Court, in the event of a successful referendum (defined herein as the "leave" side wins) but an impasse to negotiations, or no negotiations at all, "we need not speculate here as to what would then transpire". Hmmm - failure to reach a peaceful settlement for a national "divorce"......presumably a viable alternative is a non-peaceful settlement for a national divorce. Another would be a very disgruntled populace subjugated under some sort of national "gulag". History provides examples aplenty as to how that can work out.
Mr. Ries correctly points out that "there's no absolute legal entitlement to secession or the successful negotiation of a secession agreement". He does not acknowledge however that where a democratic majority cannot obtain what they want legally, they may be strongly tempted to obtain it illegally. That is unlikely to be a pleasant experience for either side. Perhaps there is some value in speculation after all, particularly, in the case of Alberta, with an increasingly rapacious neighbour to our south potentially eager to foment turbulence north of the 49th and perhaps pluck off the juiciest (resource rich) morsels in a modern day Anschluss.
Whether explicitly stated or merely inferred, Mr. Ries appears of the view that Canada is permanent and indivisible, full stop. A nation state permanent and indivisible? History could not be more clear that all nations, empires, etc., are very impermanent and very divisible. I would suggest that any nation state sufficiently ill-informed and economically ignorant to elect Justin Trudeau to be at its helm for a decade may be even more susceptible to impermanence and divisibility. No constitution, no judges, no duty to consult, and no treaties negotiated and signed by people long dead are going to change that salient fact.
Mr. Ries closes suggesting that this court disaster for the Alberta separatists may similarly prove a fatal impediment to the referendum aspirations of the PQ who are apparently likely to return to power this year. This is rich indeed. We are talking about Quebec here, not Alberta. If the PQ wants a referendum (or never-endum as I like to call it in La Belle Provence), they will have a referendum, the courts and the First Nations be damned. I would wager that being told the courts and FN's "disallow" such a referendum would have the effect of juicing the leave vote.
Finally, let's be honest about what the duty to consult means in practical terms. Consultation means consultation. In Canada, "meaningful consultation" means a veto. Anyone who holds otherwise is just deluding themselves, a practice that in Canada now seems to have surpassed ice hockey as the national pastime and obsession.
Great response! I don't think Canada is permanent or indivisible - just very difficult to divide, as Quebec secessionists spent the latter half of the 20th century learning.
A very upset minority of Albertans is not ideal, but if Canada survived the FLQ, my money is on Canada surviving a movement in a far smaller province that has far less support within that province.
Your point about possible American intervention under Trump is a fair one. That's why I'm celebrating the arrest of the secession movement's momentum now, at a relatively early stage.
"any nation state sufficiently ill-informed and economically ignorant to elect Justin Trudeau to be at its helm for a decade"
It's important to remember that the opposition party offered us Andrew Scheer who had actually less private sector experience than the "he's not ready" JT. Oh yeah, Scheer was a closeted American citizen and still is. I have issues with JT but but the CPC's repeated running of mediocre candidates is a big part of the problem.
Are you serious? You seek to justify, at least in part, the election, and subsequent re-elections of Trudeau not on the basis of bad policy and off-the-charts incompetence, but rather on personality and presentability? So let me get this straight - Trudeau was repeatedly elected, and thus empowered to wreck Canada, because a plurality of the Canadian electorate cared more about the personality, mannerisms, and looks of the party leaders, and cared little (or not at all) about policy and performance? So we elect, and re-elect, a party led by a buffoon, idiot, and virtue-signalling narcissist on the basis of the leader's personality, and get a broken nation as our reward. We then refuse to elect the party with diametrically opposed policies ..... on the basis of personality, and are bewildered as to why our country is broken. Well, I rest my case as to the collective stupidity of the Canadian electorate.
Whoa! I hope you can relax and enjoy the long weekend. Canada has not been "wrecked" no matter how many times certain politicians tell you that. Canada, like all the other countries in the world, has problems that need dealing with. You may have missed my point about Andrew Scheer. He was obviously LESS qualified than Trudeau - and, yes, we're talking about a lot of "unqualified" between the two of them. All these years later I do not think Canada made a mistake there. Scheer and Poilievre behave like Young Republican frat boys. I honestly don't know what the policies are other than some slogans about hand-outs to Big Oil and "smart people suck" (Carney was educated wrong - holy moly!). The CPC will continue to lose until they put forward candidates that the majority of Canadians can actually respect.
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.
1. That doesn't make us not landlocked, that's just starting a war via blockade (which is a casus belli) with a country that has a larger GDP, more people, and access to tidewater.
2. Alberta's ability to disrupt interprovincial trade is a major reason why the federal government and the other provinces would most likely refuse to allow us to secede. No sane country allows a chokepoint in its coast-to-coast infrastructure to be seized by a foreign power.
Do you honestly think the Americans care about legal process and "sternly worded letters" from Canadians if it gets in the way of them and energy security?
In the end the Americans have a veto even over the First Nations
I wish you and yours would stop indulging in such incendiary polemics.
More to the point, do not underestimate the willingness of people elsewhere in the country to fight tooth-and-nail any attempt by any in Alberta to "cut off Canada" from the other western provinces and territories, ex Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
We can all agree that a peaceful and democratic referendum campaign with any talk of force, blockades, or "not allow" taken completely off the table, is the right way forward. Can't we?
It’s in the risk tail. But it’s there and it’s bigger than we should be comfortable with.
The author writes:
“The main purpose of the courts, when you get right down to it, is to force bullshit into contact with reality”
Sorry no.
That doesn’t survive contact with an American division. Neither does all this nonsense about national park boundaries, FN consultation, etc.
In Trumps feral nature, his ability to sense weakness is exceptionally well honed.
Thats Reality, with the niceties trimmed off. And we have invited this.
The author writes about dingbat ideas, anatomic contortions. But misses the animating force of separatism.
Here it is: the rest of Canada has had it much more wrong, and Alberta has been much more right, than you’d like to admit.
250 years ago we would all have had an innate recognition of the molecular basis of power and life. It was the wood shed we all had to fill.
If you didn’t fill it you and your family died that winter.
The molecular basis of power and life is still a thing. The real cranio-rectal inversion was pretending it’s not, history was over, EV was here, no need for the stuff keep it in the ground etc.
telling the provinces that know how these molecules sustain our lives, that its not true. That their ESG spreadsheets could not allow the development and export of those molecules, telling them, their fellow Canadians, they produced the “dirty oil”. It embarrassed them at all the global conferences.
The ‘clean oil’, you see, was produced by Putins war machine, or GC countries where even our allies stone women and chop up journalists, and our foes fund terrorism via the worlds gas tanks.
And not just oil. Other distillates. Urea : do you know how much of the world’s crops go without fertilizer this year? Do you know what it means?
I mean - did they even account for the emissions of the US 5th fleet in that spreadsheet? Or the emissions incurred by bombing Ulranians? Because obviously the human carnage got a pass
Albertas ‘dirty oil’ could not be allowed to compete; at least not with a functional market. It had to be regulated to the point where it was effectively nationalized. Constitution be damned.
It still needs an industrial carbon tax that I’m sure the teapot refineries processing the Iranian crude that keeps the IRGC crushing Iranians also observe.
Because Value(s).
Truth is these vulnerabilities - of us an our allies - have been there the whole time. The rig hands knew more about Hormuz than you’d care to admit. Alberta has more engineers per capita then any other province and you decided wit large that they don’t know what they’re talking about, applaud the cancellation of pipelines, provide interviews about the need to oppose ‘les petroliers’. (He said it because it plays well out there!)
So frankly it’s up to the ROC to collectively extract its cranium. I don’t think, with Hormuz compromised and oil heading north of 100, Trump will be in the mood to hear of all the great reasons we haven’t had a green field oil sands project since 2014.
Our allies certainly should not be. We could have been in a position to help avert the crisis that is about to assert itself in Asia and Europe, and here as well. (Imagine if energy east was finished).
Carney starts walking some of it back and it’s not because it was ever wrong. It’s just the new right. BS.
The most pigheaded, unconstitutional wrongs are still in place. And they are at odds with the development and export of load bearing molecules our allies and world desperately need.
That underpins our reality, and where the real bs will collide.
All of this is true — but also it’s true that if we don’t do anything about climate change, we’re going to be in equally deep doo-doo.
Two hard truths can exist at the same time.
The energy transition is going to take WW2 levels of investment for 50 straight years, not an easy “cost-free” 20 years. The Trudeau people just outright lied about that, out of the best of intentions but still a deceit.
But we still have to do it.
I sometimes don’t know how the country stays together when one province relies on fossil fuels that deeply for its prosperity and we have to phase them out sooner or later.
Good debating. We will never stop climate change so the time has come for everyone to look at directing resources to protect and reduce the impact of climate change.
At this point it feels like most people paying attention to the charts are resigned to the eventual need for geoengineering as a stopgap until we can control emissions (or a permanently new fact of life if controlling them never proves possible). We just aren't talking about it.
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…
If the vote doesn't succeed, then no consultation is needed. But if it does succeed, how can Alberta consult about a result it's already legally bound to implement?
That would be kind of like your neighbour promising to consult you regarding the details of repairing a shared fence after he hires the contractor and buys the materials.
The scenario you describe could be accurate. The details are in the separation act to my knowledge. The nature of “consultation” like anything else in Ottawa seems to be shrouded in secrecy. Anything from “suck it up buttercup” to “who do we make the check out to” to “we have more firepower than you” to “we’ve got an offer you can’t refuse”.
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.
The warning for doing that is Brexit. A lot of people either didn't really want to leave the EU or weren't even thinking of that. They just wanted to send a message that they were feeling ignored. They did serious damage to their country by not paying serious attention. They were also manipulated by Steve Bannon types who had their own agenda and didn't give a hoot about the people in Britain. Bannon is likely in touch with Alberta separatists. Why don't you articulate the message you want to send to Ottawa and just send it? It's like someone feeling underappreciated by his boss so he burns down the factory. Surely there must be a better way for that person to express himself. Don't forget that a lot of the message that the East doesn't care about Alberta is nonsense propagated by Conservative politicians to keep the heat off their own mistakes.
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 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.
Technically speaking, the referendum cannot simply be on whether to "begin negotiations". The Clarity Act doesn't require the rest of Canada to negotiate with separatists unless the referendum question is specifically a plain statement that the voters wish to separate from the rest of Canada.
Also consider that there's an "underpants gnome" flaw in this path, between "hold negotiations" and "be satisfied with the outcome of that". If the outcome of "hold negotiations" is the rest of Canada refusing to agree to secession, the process dead-ends.
The first referendum is optional, if you want to ask the public if they want to even start the process.
That’s part of the negotiations. The RoC is likely to want to let a cankerous province with broad separation support go (hence the first referendum to prove you have support for separation, and not just a protest vote), but on terms that are thought to be ‘fair’.
I.e. a province that seeks to separate and claims half of the CPP (for example) would find it difficult to be take seriously.
A thoughtful response, thank you! To be clear, I don't believe Canada's Indigenous have a veto over a province's separation, only (collectively) the federal government and Canada's other provinces.
However, it would likely be difficult to genuinely resolve the many issues caused by the conflicts between treaty rights and a province's secession, and I don't think the kind of people who tend to lead the charge on secession are temperamentally suited to resolving those issues.
So, practically speaking, although separatism isn't broken, it's assuredly badly bent by Wednesday's ruling.
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.
Good thing you kept it open, even with a warning. This is an OK practice. Do not become like CBC.
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.
You once talked about how our problems are not due to stupidity, but by 8s who think they are 10s. I would counter that the Alberta issue is essentially 5s fighting 8s, with both thinking themselves to be 10s...
Good call and setting ground rules.
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.
> 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".
You can't run a country while having to negotiate with 600+ "nations" while also supporting most of them financially. Canada can't afford $40B per year in perpetuity for never-ending "reconciliation" which was supposed to be an end but instead became the beginning of a big-business grievance-based industry that mostly benefits lawyers.
Your argument confuses two very different concepts, that being equality before the law and the existence of distinct constitutional obligations. Canada does not recognize Indigenous rights because of race in the abstract, but because Indigenous nations entered into specific historical and legal relationships with the Crown through treaties and constitutional arrangements. Those obligations are political and constitutional in nature, not simply ethnic preferences. A treaty is not rendered meaningless because the people who signed it happened to belong to a particular group.
I will agree with you that the Charter and Supreme Court decisions are not sacred tablets from heaven. Constitutional law is a human institution, open to criticism and revision. But that cuts both ways. Rejecting the idea that courts are infallible does not automatically mean constitutional protections are illegitimate or socially destructive. Every stable democracy depends on some framework that places limits on majority power and protects foundational agreements from temporary political passions. In Canada, that includes federalism, minority language protections, provincial jurisdiction, and Indigenous treaty rights.
The deeper problem with your position is that it treats all distinctions in law as inherently unjust. But modern states make distinctions constantly. Provinces have powers municipalities do not. Francophone minorities have language protections Anglophones may not. Religious freedoms protect some practices and not others. Veterans, refugees, and Indigenous communities all occupy distinct legal categories in different contexts. The real question is not whether distinctions exist, but whether there is a principled constitutional and historical basis for them.
It is also historically incomplete to frame Indigenous constitutional status as some modern ideological invention imposed on an otherwise unified country. Many treaties were signed before the 1867 Confederation and therefore prior to the Canadian state itself. Indigenous nations were not simply immigrant communities folded into an existing constitutional order; in many cases they were parties to the creation and expansion of that order. Ignoring those agreements in the name of abstract uniformity would not create equality; it would amount to retroactively voiding commitments that Canada itself relied upon to establish sovereignty over vast territories.
Finally, legality and legitimacy are not identical, but neither are they opposites. A society does not become “ungovernable” merely because constitutional rights constrain what majorities can do in moments of political frustration. In fact, constitutional democracies are specifically designed to channel conflict through legal institutions rather than through raw political force. The alternative is not neutral fairness; it is a system where whichever faction holds temporary power can redefine rights and obligations at will. That may feel emotionally satisfying in the short term, but historically it has produced far more instability than constitutional pluralism ever has.
"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.
And what if they were just ignored? Who would come and keep Alberta in the fold? Would sternly worded letters keep Alberta from leaving?
Courts and nations are only as good as the powers they can enforce. Canada just technically couldn't.
If the Charter was so great they would have had a referendum to ratify it, but they knew it couldn't pass.
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.
Politicians act like it’s a veto.
"Duty to consult" is a subjective moving target. It's specifically designed to give dumb people the semblance of justice while in reality it's just a tool of legal expediency to use as a judicial veto.
To be clear, this was not just a failure to consult. The separatism petition was *also* struck down on Wednesday because at the time it was advanced, the legislation it was advanced under didn't allow unconstitutional referendum questions to be put to the public.
Elections Alberta ruled back in December that the petition's question was unconstitutional and rejected it. The court ruled on Wednesday that the new petition was the same as the one struck down in December, and that the legislation didn't allow a petition that had already been rejected to proceed.
The Indigenous aren't "magic forest elves", they're signatories to treaties that facilitated the peaceful, profitable settlement and growth of this province. They do actually have different rights than the rest of us. That's not bullshit, that's explicitly stated in our country's constitution. This is, respectfully, a "facts don't care about your feelings" situation, and the courts are here to deliver those facts to you.
As for Quebec, separatist sentiment is running about as hot as it currently is in Alberta. If Quebec secession shouldn't be taken seriously, neither should Alberta secession. We don't have to cater to the plucky outlaws, we can (and should) focus on serious issues instead.
Arguing legal technicalities in the face of a province where over 25% of the people actively want to leave Canada is going to go really well. This will surely put the matter to bed.
Due to a series of legal technicalities, the UCP govern Alberta despite 44% of the people actively wanting them not to take office. Somehow the province still functions.
"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 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.
They are mired in typical male ego BS and the public in-fighting has been spectacular to read about. Complete and utter amateur hour.
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.
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.
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.
If people who intend to secede from Canada feel wounded by being called traitors, they should really get off the bus, because if they succeed - or even come close enough to success to cause real problems - they're going to be referred to as traitors by Canadians and loyalist Albertans, in journalism, on social media, in the arts, and to their face, for the rest of their lives.
113 years after the end of the American Civil War, famous country musicians were still cutting tracks about the South with lyrics like "Away down South in the land of traitors/Rattlesnakes and alligators".
Ones traitor is another's freedom fighter.
There is a Balkan saying that it is just as important to have the right enemies as the right friends.
Being called a traitor by those you despise is a badge of honour.
Albertan separatists if anything are guilty of being pussies. They have that Canadian weakness of rather wanting to be polite and legends in their own minds rather than win.
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.
The fact that every single province didn't choose Newfoundland just proves that not enough Canadians have been to Newfoundland. I used to think people in Toronto were pretty nice until I went to St. John's and realized we're complete monsters comparatively.
Toronto is where your soul ends up if you were a jerk in life.
"Toronto is an old Indian word meaning 'the place where the mind narrows.'"
I forget who said it, but it's timeless.
I love 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.
I'm the author of the article. I am an Albertan. This is where I was raised, where I built my career, and where I intend to live for at least the next several decades. I love this province. My contempt is reserved for separatists.
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.
Great. Then the Alberta separatist can add up all the reasons to separate, create a party dedicated to it, run like-minded candidates in every riding promoting it, and answer to a leader who explicitly campaigns on it.
Go for it.
While the tone is a tad self-inflated/congratulatory the article does cover the KB decisions, reasons and impacts clearly.
Thanks for writing it.
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.
QUOTE
Perhaps allowing democracy to proceed to the people's desired end would be a better way. I think both judges got it wrong.
END QUOTE
Given all else that the separatists have indulged in, such as doxing prominent political figures and, indeed, the entire population of the province of Alberta without their permission, or hiding behind what has to be one of the poorest excuses for "a federalist premier" that I have ever seen...
... such claims as this seem akin to what Bolsheviks (ironically not the majority) claimed before they imposed their little version of hell on the various peoples of the Soviet Union...
Canadians really need to stop with the high trust bumpkin routine.
A big reason the rest of the world doesn't respect Alberta Separatists is because folks know they are pussies. They don't have the brains or the gumption to actually do something big. Canadians always fall back on words as if they are actions in their own right.
I can see an endgame here where the Americans come in
It isn’t only separatists but Canadians generally. Someone should visit Ottawa ( stopping by Doug Ford’s office on the way) and explain what “All hat and no cattle” means. I’m also getting tired of saying “Bless your heart” to Ontarians I meet after 5 minutes of political discussion.😆😆😆
Canadian culture is deeply risk adverse, to a comical degree. Agreed.
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.
They didn't dare put the Charter up for a ratification referendum.
The Charter of permissions and pretense?
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.
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 think she should call an election and see what Albertans think. Her polling shows she's about seventeen points ahead. Her opponent Nenshi is a dud. A spectacular dud. I think she will expand her majority should that happen. Get a mandate from voters if you can.
I agree that something as momentous as a referendum on independence requires a proper electoral mandate.
I also agree that Nahid Nenahi has been disappointing, at least in part because of his “consult, consult, consult” approach to leadership, as well as his claim to be non-partisan.
He built a career in municipal politics on those grounds, but I believe that, in order to succeed, he has to get much tougher, and declare in no uncertain terms what he supports, what he resolutely opposes, and who he really is.
TBH, I’m not sure he has it in him.
Who knows? Perhaps there is room for a strongly federalist, middle-ground party, and perhaps he could be the one to stake out that territory.
Again, I doubt it.
Finally, and I probably should have made this point earlier, it is possible that, despite Nenshi’s flaws, Danielle Smith’s equivocation on the “Canada or not” question could trip her up, and with her the UCP.
Mind you, the UCP has been doing its level best to skew riding boundaries and electoral rules to favour itself (just as the Republicans in the United States in particular have done).
Skewing of boundaries for electoral gain happens regularly in Canada, I think. Agree, Nenshi is not the guy. For me the best thing for dippers in AB to do start a new party that is not in any way affiliated or even mistaken for the federal NDP.
What Smith is planning in terms of skewing boundaries has never been done in modern times. She's going for the full cheat by diluting the votes of City dwellers even more than they already are. If you care about democracy at all you should be very much against it. Everyone's vote should count the same no matter where they live.
No, Danielle Smith’s government is not doing something completely unprecedented in Canadian history. That said, it is a sharp contrast to what has been done by governments in the past.
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 :)
And you made mine, Debbie. Thank you for your kind words!
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.
Gosh. Speaking of “devastatingly well-written”!
I do not disagree with much of what Mr. Ries has written in this article, and wholeheartedly endorse his criticism of the, well, utter idiocy of the Alberta government in creating this mess, and the even greater idiocy subsequently displayed in the mismanagement of the mess they made. It has been textbook gong show. Just when you thought it could not get any more absurd, there was Elections Alberta waving of Jen Gerson's alert to a situation now being intensely investigated as, well, something not worthy of investigation. You just could not make this stuff up.
All that aside, I was however struck by the inferences of several of the statements in the article.
First, quoting the Supreme Court, in the event of a successful referendum (defined herein as the "leave" side wins) but an impasse to negotiations, or no negotiations at all, "we need not speculate here as to what would then transpire". Hmmm - failure to reach a peaceful settlement for a national "divorce"......presumably a viable alternative is a non-peaceful settlement for a national divorce. Another would be a very disgruntled populace subjugated under some sort of national "gulag". History provides examples aplenty as to how that can work out.
Mr. Ries correctly points out that "there's no absolute legal entitlement to secession or the successful negotiation of a secession agreement". He does not acknowledge however that where a democratic majority cannot obtain what they want legally, they may be strongly tempted to obtain it illegally. That is unlikely to be a pleasant experience for either side. Perhaps there is some value in speculation after all, particularly, in the case of Alberta, with an increasingly rapacious neighbour to our south potentially eager to foment turbulence north of the 49th and perhaps pluck off the juiciest (resource rich) morsels in a modern day Anschluss.
Whether explicitly stated or merely inferred, Mr. Ries appears of the view that Canada is permanent and indivisible, full stop. A nation state permanent and indivisible? History could not be more clear that all nations, empires, etc., are very impermanent and very divisible. I would suggest that any nation state sufficiently ill-informed and economically ignorant to elect Justin Trudeau to be at its helm for a decade may be even more susceptible to impermanence and divisibility. No constitution, no judges, no duty to consult, and no treaties negotiated and signed by people long dead are going to change that salient fact.
Mr. Ries closes suggesting that this court disaster for the Alberta separatists may similarly prove a fatal impediment to the referendum aspirations of the PQ who are apparently likely to return to power this year. This is rich indeed. We are talking about Quebec here, not Alberta. If the PQ wants a referendum (or never-endum as I like to call it in La Belle Provence), they will have a referendum, the courts and the First Nations be damned. I would wager that being told the courts and FN's "disallow" such a referendum would have the effect of juicing the leave vote.
Finally, let's be honest about what the duty to consult means in practical terms. Consultation means consultation. In Canada, "meaningful consultation" means a veto. Anyone who holds otherwise is just deluding themselves, a practice that in Canada now seems to have surpassed ice hockey as the national pastime and obsession.
Great response! I don't think Canada is permanent or indivisible - just very difficult to divide, as Quebec secessionists spent the latter half of the 20th century learning.
A very upset minority of Albertans is not ideal, but if Canada survived the FLQ, my money is on Canada surviving a movement in a far smaller province that has far less support within that province.
Your point about possible American intervention under Trump is a fair one. That's why I'm celebrating the arrest of the secession movement's momentum now, at a relatively early stage.
"any nation state sufficiently ill-informed and economically ignorant to elect Justin Trudeau to be at its helm for a decade"
It's important to remember that the opposition party offered us Andrew Scheer who had actually less private sector experience than the "he's not ready" JT. Oh yeah, Scheer was a closeted American citizen and still is. I have issues with JT but but the CPC's repeated running of mediocre candidates is a big part of the problem.
Are you serious? You seek to justify, at least in part, the election, and subsequent re-elections of Trudeau not on the basis of bad policy and off-the-charts incompetence, but rather on personality and presentability? So let me get this straight - Trudeau was repeatedly elected, and thus empowered to wreck Canada, because a plurality of the Canadian electorate cared more about the personality, mannerisms, and looks of the party leaders, and cared little (or not at all) about policy and performance? So we elect, and re-elect, a party led by a buffoon, idiot, and virtue-signalling narcissist on the basis of the leader's personality, and get a broken nation as our reward. We then refuse to elect the party with diametrically opposed policies ..... on the basis of personality, and are bewildered as to why our country is broken. Well, I rest my case as to the collective stupidity of the Canadian electorate.
Whoa! I hope you can relax and enjoy the long weekend. Canada has not been "wrecked" no matter how many times certain politicians tell you that. Canada, like all the other countries in the world, has problems that need dealing with. You may have missed my point about Andrew Scheer. He was obviously LESS qualified than Trudeau - and, yes, we're talking about a lot of "unqualified" between the two of them. All these years later I do not think Canada made a mistake there. Scheer and Poilievre behave like Young Republican frat boys. I honestly don't know what the policies are other than some slogans about hand-outs to Big Oil and "smart people suck" (Carney was educated wrong - holy moly!). The CPC will continue to lose until they put forward candidates that the majority of Canadians can actually respect.
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.
Spare us "landlocked ". If it gets nasty, AB cuts Canada off from BC, NWT, YK.
1. That doesn't make us not landlocked, that's just starting a war via blockade (which is a casus belli) with a country that has a larger GDP, more people, and access to tidewater.
2. Alberta's ability to disrupt interprovincial trade is a major reason why the federal government and the other provinces would most likely refuse to allow us to secede. No sane country allows a chokepoint in its coast-to-coast infrastructure to be seized by a foreign power.
Do you honestly think the Americans care about legal process and "sternly worded letters" from Canadians if it gets in the way of them and energy security?
In the end the Americans have a veto even over the First Nations
Landlocked is irrelevant unless the other country starts the blockade first.
"Not allow" is meaningless - how would they stop Alberta? Send JTF 2 to black bag Danielle Smith?
I wish you and yours would stop indulging in such incendiary polemics.
More to the point, do not underestimate the willingness of people elsewhere in the country to fight tooth-and-nail any attempt by any in Alberta to "cut off Canada" from the other western provinces and territories, ex Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
We can all agree that a peaceful and democratic referendum campaign with any talk of force, blockades, or "not allow" taken completely off the table, is the right way forward. Can't we?
And once the Americans come to Alberta to "secure energy" Canada will be humbled.
In the end it's force and might that make the final decision.
I will just say that you are spectacularly misreading the "room".
Oil is gonna oil as evidenced by the price at the pumps.
Entirely feasible.
It’s in the risk tail. But it’s there and it’s bigger than we should be comfortable with.
The author writes:
“The main purpose of the courts, when you get right down to it, is to force bullshit into contact with reality”
Sorry no.
That doesn’t survive contact with an American division. Neither does all this nonsense about national park boundaries, FN consultation, etc.
In Trumps feral nature, his ability to sense weakness is exceptionally well honed.
Thats Reality, with the niceties trimmed off. And we have invited this.
The author writes about dingbat ideas, anatomic contortions. But misses the animating force of separatism.
Here it is: the rest of Canada has had it much more wrong, and Alberta has been much more right, than you’d like to admit.
250 years ago we would all have had an innate recognition of the molecular basis of power and life. It was the wood shed we all had to fill.
If you didn’t fill it you and your family died that winter.
The molecular basis of power and life is still a thing. The real cranio-rectal inversion was pretending it’s not, history was over, EV was here, no need for the stuff keep it in the ground etc.
telling the provinces that know how these molecules sustain our lives, that its not true. That their ESG spreadsheets could not allow the development and export of those molecules, telling them, their fellow Canadians, they produced the “dirty oil”. It embarrassed them at all the global conferences.
The ‘clean oil’, you see, was produced by Putins war machine, or GC countries where even our allies stone women and chop up journalists, and our foes fund terrorism via the worlds gas tanks.
And not just oil. Other distillates. Urea : do you know how much of the world’s crops go without fertilizer this year? Do you know what it means?
I mean - did they even account for the emissions of the US 5th fleet in that spreadsheet? Or the emissions incurred by bombing Ulranians? Because obviously the human carnage got a pass
Albertas ‘dirty oil’ could not be allowed to compete; at least not with a functional market. It had to be regulated to the point where it was effectively nationalized. Constitution be damned.
It still needs an industrial carbon tax that I’m sure the teapot refineries processing the Iranian crude that keeps the IRGC crushing Iranians also observe.
Because Value(s).
Truth is these vulnerabilities - of us an our allies - have been there the whole time. The rig hands knew more about Hormuz than you’d care to admit. Alberta has more engineers per capita then any other province and you decided wit large that they don’t know what they’re talking about, applaud the cancellation of pipelines, provide interviews about the need to oppose ‘les petroliers’. (He said it because it plays well out there!)
So frankly it’s up to the ROC to collectively extract its cranium. I don’t think, with Hormuz compromised and oil heading north of 100, Trump will be in the mood to hear of all the great reasons we haven’t had a green field oil sands project since 2014.
Our allies certainly should not be. We could have been in a position to help avert the crisis that is about to assert itself in Asia and Europe, and here as well. (Imagine if energy east was finished).
Carney starts walking some of it back and it’s not because it was ever wrong. It’s just the new right. BS.
The most pigheaded, unconstitutional wrongs are still in place. And they are at odds with the development and export of load bearing molecules our allies and world desperately need.
That underpins our reality, and where the real bs will collide.
All of this is true — but also it’s true that if we don’t do anything about climate change, we’re going to be in equally deep doo-doo.
Two hard truths can exist at the same time.
The energy transition is going to take WW2 levels of investment for 50 straight years, not an easy “cost-free” 20 years. The Trudeau people just outright lied about that, out of the best of intentions but still a deceit.
But we still have to do it.
I sometimes don’t know how the country stays together when one province relies on fossil fuels that deeply for its prosperity and we have to phase them out sooner or later.
Good debating. We will never stop climate change so the time has come for everyone to look at directing resources to protect and reduce the impact of climate change.
At this point it feels like most people paying attention to the charts are resigned to the eventual need for geoengineering as a stopgap until we can control emissions (or a permanently new fact of life if controlling them never proves possible). We just aren't talking about it.
I suspect there is backlash in talking about it.
Refreshing to hear someone state it out loud at least (that we shouldn’t even try on climate mitigation / decarbonization).
That puts us on something like an RCP8.5 trajectory and a pretty dire future.
It is a very bad idea.
The likelihood of planet Earth agreeing and then actually lowering emissions is up there with Bigfoot having a hit show on Food TV.
Well you'll be relieved to know that RCP8.5 is off the table: https://wapo.st/4eVRlM9
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…
The whole crux of the First Nations vehement pushing back against Alberta secession is that it would cut off the money from Ottawa.
Yep you put your finger on it. Alberta might have to pull a Bill Clinton and let the tribes run casinos. Maybe they do it already?
Yes they do. Very well. It’s much enjoyed and appreciated! https://www.rivercreeresort.com
Recommending for the next time you’re in town.
Impressive! Thanks for the info one more for the bucket list!
If the federalists were confident they would win a referendum, they wouldn't resort to these tricks.
If the vote doesn't succeed, then no consultation is needed. But if it does succeed, how can Alberta consult about a result it's already legally bound to implement?
That would be kind of like your neighbour promising to consult you regarding the details of repairing a shared fence after he hires the contractor and buys the materials.
The scenario you describe could be accurate. The details are in the separation act to my knowledge. The nature of “consultation” like anything else in Ottawa seems to be shrouded in secrecy. Anything from “suck it up buttercup” to “who do we make the check out to” to “we have more firepower than you” to “we’ve got an offer you can’t refuse”.
This is exactly what the article was about. Maybe give it a quick re-read?
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.
Yes, soft separatists. We should include in that federalists who would vote in favor of leaving to send a message to Ottawa. What are your thoughts?
The warning for doing that is Brexit. A lot of people either didn't really want to leave the EU or weren't even thinking of that. They just wanted to send a message that they were feeling ignored. They did serious damage to their country by not paying serious attention. They were also manipulated by Steve Bannon types who had their own agenda and didn't give a hoot about the people in Britain. Bannon is likely in touch with Alberta separatists. Why don't you articulate the message you want to send to Ottawa and just send it? It's like someone feeling underappreciated by his boss so he burns down the factory. Surely there must be a better way for that person to express himself. Don't forget that a lot of the message that the East doesn't care about Alberta is nonsense propagated by Conservative politicians to keep the heat off their own mistakes.
What is the difference between Bannon manipulation and standard run of the mill manipulation that is all part of the political show in this country?
For me, best way forward is to bring all the provinces to the table and renegotiate the constitution for the century we are currently residing in.
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 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.
This. The path available is:
- Stand up an explicitly separatist party,
- win an election,
- (optionally) hold a referendum on beginning negotiations (including a statement an explicit 2nd one required to actually implement)
- hold negotiations
- be satisfied with the outcome of that
- hold 2nd referendum
- win 2nd referendum
- pass constitutional amendment based on negotiated agreement. Now, you have separated.
Technically speaking, the referendum cannot simply be on whether to "begin negotiations". The Clarity Act doesn't require the rest of Canada to negotiate with separatists unless the referendum question is specifically a plain statement that the voters wish to separate from the rest of Canada.
Also consider that there's an "underpants gnome" flaw in this path, between "hold negotiations" and "be satisfied with the outcome of that". If the outcome of "hold negotiations" is the rest of Canada refusing to agree to secession, the process dead-ends.
The first referendum is optional, if you want to ask the public if they want to even start the process.
That’s part of the negotiations. The RoC is likely to want to let a cankerous province with broad separation support go (hence the first referendum to prove you have support for separation, and not just a protest vote), but on terms that are thought to be ‘fair’.
I.e. a province that seeks to separate and claims half of the CPP (for example) would find it difficult to be take seriously.
A thoughtful response, thank you! To be clear, I don't believe Canada's Indigenous have a veto over a province's separation, only (collectively) the federal government and Canada's other provinces.
However, it would likely be difficult to genuinely resolve the many issues caused by the conflicts between treaty rights and a province's secession, and I don't think the kind of people who tend to lead the charge on secession are temperamentally suited to resolving those issues.
So, practically speaking, although separatism isn't broken, it's assuredly badly bent by Wednesday's ruling.
Or Alberta could just ignore the courts and call them illegitimate and foreign influenced. What would they do?