Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
"Native" is a pretty outdated term. Indigenous is more appropriate. But yes. Treaties 6,7 and 8 cover most of Alberta, with the remaining covered by 4 and 10. Those treaties were made with the Crown, before Canadian independence, and before Alberta as a province existed. Those treaties are still legal agreements to which Alberta has zero rights to end or renegotiate, because they are not a party to them. Any attempt for Alberta to seperate would immediately be challenged in court, and defeated. It's one of the reasons this is all so stupid.
The only way for this to happen is for the Crown and all indigenous treaty parties to agree, or violence and war. Clearly given the lack of respect the UCP has shown them indicates they'd have to be dumber than Trump voters to side with the UCP, and then you still have to get The Crown on side, and probably the rest of Canada, too.
|
To me, whether you are for or against the idea of Alberta separation, two points need to be emphasized by every person who would like our society to be shaped by reality and fact-based debates:
1. The only thing a successful referendum vote for secession gets you is
a legal and moral entitlement to negotiate a potential exit. That's it. No entitlement to an actual exit, just the chance to try and the need for others to also at least try to come to an agreement respecting the referendum result in good faith.
The separatists comical 'Fully Costed Fiscal Plan' and other propaganda now asserts that "no different than Kosovo" (I promise that is an actual quote) Alberta could ignore the Clarity Act legal and constitutional requirements, get a mere "50% plus one" and then skip negotiations and "declare" independence that would simply be recognized by the US and poof! we become a country (giving up nothing and only gaining everything we could ever want).
Of course, in this fever-dream scenario of idiocy they completely skip attempting to say what the financial assets and territorial borders of such a non-negotiated 'declared' Alberta would be...because of course such a declared state could not just take federal funds or a single square foot of federal or treaty lands with it.
2. Stating the obvious, any separation negotiations would actually occur with - you guessed it - the rest of Canada...including First Nations. Any negotiated secession would then need to be ratified by the House and Senate by way of the constitutional amending formula agreed to by (checks notes) yep, Alberta, at the patriation of the Constitution back in 1982.
While it is not crystal clear which subsection of the amending formula would apply, let us assume we do not need unanimous agreement of all provinces but instead we only need 7 provinces representing 50% of the population...there is no way we ever get that level of support for any kind of one-sided agreement that sets Alberta up sweet and leaves the rest of Canada in the lurch.
This is just basic common sense. If anything, the New Alberta that claims it will be so super rich within a couple years of leaving will have to lopsidedly buy its way out of Canada - otherwise the rest of Canada just won't agree.
So, the entire premise of the current separatists that rich New Alberta can run away and become Dubai 2.0 and leave behind a pile of rubble is a fallacy unless they plan to engage in a revolutionary war.
That said, it seems to me in a constitutional amendment negotiation, any individual Treaty Nation would be expected to negotiate in good faith and could decide to terminate its existing treaty in order to broker a new deal with New Alberta. But in practical terms it would be up to the prospective New Alberta to make an offer good enough to convince them to do so.