All Things AB Separatism (split fm Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???)

[PrairieFella]

And that is the crux of the matter with Premier Smith making it easier (possible?) for the fringe to get enough support to trigger a referendum. There is already a mechanism in Alberta for the population (eligible voters) to bring policy, legislative or constitutional proposal to a provincial referendum. It is the Citizen Initiative Act. Under this current law, to bring a constitutional proposal (and separation is a constitutional question) would require signatures from 20% of provincial electors on the post-election day list of electors, with the 20% threshold reached in at least 2/3 of electoral divisions to be successful. To put a number to that - 587,952 with the numbers in each riding as per this Number of Signatures Required for Initiative - Elections Alberta.

Smith's UCP government introduced the day after the federal election a bill that would amend the Citizen Initiative Act (and other laws related to the referendum process) that would significantly reduce the threshold to trigger a referendum. Those changes include:

• Reducing the threshold for constitutional referendum proposals from 20 percent of all registered voters province-wide, including 20 percent of electors in at least two-thirds of the province’s electoral divisions, to 10 percent of voters who cast a ballot in the last general election.
• Extending the signature collection period for initiative petitions from 90 days to 120 days.
• Shortening the chief electoral officer’s review timeline and expanding their ability to refer proposals to court for constitutional review.
• Requiring referendums and initiative votes to be held on or before the next general election, unless that election is less than a year away.

Simply put, that changes the number of signatures required from 587,952 to 176,345.

Certainly a dirty political trick and telegraphs what she wants in a plausibly denial way.

 

[QV]

Certainly a dirty political trick and telegraphs what she wants in a plausibly denial way.

But the only vote that matters is the referendum which requires a "clear majority" which I guess is much more than 50.1%. And according to many there is zero chance it achieves that.

So nothing to worry about, right? And this would probably end Smith's chances at another term... so everyone (the many naysayers) should be good with that, right?

So why not let it happen without any fuss and applaud the example of direct democracy in action?

 

[PrairieFella]

The Clarity Act doesn't limit which provinces can secede.

I'm also not sure how you argue one province is a nation with in a nation then argue another isn't. Que has a culture just as I'm sure Alberta and Sask do, and I know the Maritimes does. We made the mistake of allowing one. I'm not sure we can deny others.

The Clarity Act also states that all provinces and indigenous peoples have a seat at the negotiations, should a leave vote win a majority enough.

Referendums aren't about sensible economic decisions. If they were Que never would have had one. The offer absolutely zero to themselves or another state, they are a net drain province.

Referendums are about anger at the system and and expression of not feeling represented by your electoral system.

Because Quebec is a nation, the core of Quebec is an ethnic group, the Quebecois, who have existed as a people since the days of New France as the descendents of the colonists. They signed on to thr BNA as their own distinct province of the British Empire. They have their own legal traditions, norms and language. Whereas Alberta is a multi ethnic polity created unilaterally as an administrative division of an established country with no distinct legal tradition, no ethnic animus, no established norms and no distinct culture beyond cosplaying cowboys for a few days a year. To paraphrase the leader of the Bloc, O&G does not a nation/culture make.

Line up a Manitoban, Saskatchewanian, Alberta, Ontarian, British Columbia or Territorial citizen and you will not be able to distinguish them whatsoever beyond some subtle speech patterns. This goes for their general culture too. This is not the case for a Quebecois. This aligns with the traditional understanding that Canada was the meeting of the two founding nations, the Anglos and the Francos coming to together in mutual defence against the American threat post civil war. This was later expanded to include the wrongfully neglected First Nations, Métis and Inuit.

Sure the clarity act doesnt explicitly state some provinces cant secede, it would ultimately be up to the SCC to interpret the legality of any such attempt. Ironically if Alberta became a country, they would be the post-national country that conservatives mock so much.

 

[Remius]

But succession is part of our democracy.

It actually isn’t. It isn’t defined in our constitution.

Yes we do actually have the mechanism for a province to take their ball and leave because they didn't win.

Not really. We have an act that clarifies and sets some of the conditions that could lead to négociations. The actual mechanism to take their ball and leave is still undefined and the clarity act says as much in that it would require a constitutional change.

I think it could have, just not immediately. It would have taken PP to not live up to any of his campaign promises.

My question is what does it's say about the fragility of our country that we continue to have serious regional secessionist movements; And to have a secessionist referendum every 15 to 30 years ?

My answer is that it says a lot about the strength of our country that we can weather serious secessionist movements and not devolve into outright civil war like in so many other places with weaker and more fragile systems that allow for no other solution.

We haven’t had referendums every 15 to 30 years. We’ve had two total over the entirety of our country’s existence. And we are still around and intact.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Because Quebec is a nation, the core of Quebec is an ethnic group, the Quebecois, who have existed as a people since the days of New France as the descendents of the colonists. They signed on to thr BNA as their own distinct province of the British Empire. They have their own legal traditions, norms and language. Whereas Alberta is a multi ethnic polity created unilaterally as an administrative division of an established country with no distinct legal tradition, no ethnic animus, no established norms and no distinct culture beyond cosplaying cowboys for a few days a year. To paraphrase the leader of the Bloc, O&G does not a nation/culture make.

I think you are mixing culture with ethnicity. Que has a distinct culture, absolutely no argument from me. We have many cultures in Canada, with some underling common tones that seem to unite most of us. But they aren't much ethnically different than other European colonial decedent's from Fogo to Comox.

Alberta has enough culture to warrant a wiki page regardless of what a kicking rocks Bloc leader thinks.

Culture of Alberta - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just for fun:

Culture of Saskatchewan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

*Sadly no pirates mentioned
**But I didn't check Manitoba

Line up a Manitoban, Saskatchewanian, Alberta, Ontarian, British Columbia or Territorial citizen and you will not be able to distinguish them whatsoever beyond some subtle speech patterns. This goes for their general culture too. This is not the case for a Quebecois. This aligns with the traditional understanding that Canada was the meeting of the two founding nations, the Anglos and the Francos coming to together in mutual defence against the American threat post civil war. This was later expanded to include the wrongfully neglected First Nations, Métis and Inuit.

I disagree. You can group one or two of them together sure, but I see 4 maybe different Canadian cultures there. I have sailed and worked with Canadians from all over this country we have differences greater than just some pronunciations. The Toronto Annex S3 Kid has big differences from the S3 Kid from Quidi Vidi and again from Chilliwack and again from Lac St-Jean.

We have simply recognized Quebec's culture as the different one in the group.

Sure the clarity act doesnt explicitly state some provinces cant secede, it would ultimately be up to the SCC to interpret the legality of any such attempt. Ironically if Alberta became a country, they would be the post-national country that conservatives mock so much.

If that's what's in the Clarity Act, sure
_____________________________________________________________________

It actually isn’t. It isn’t defined in our constitution.

Not really. We have an act that clarifies and sets some of the conditions that could lead to négociations. The actual mechanism to take their ball and leave is still undefined and the clarity act says as much in that it would require a constitutional change.

Good catch, fair point.

My answer is that it says a lot about the strength of our country that we can weather serious secessionist movements and not devolve into outright civil war like in so many other places with weaker and more fragile systems that allow for no other solution.

Ok I am off to see BTO and April Wine. Some Western and CB Culture combined!

 

[QV]

Because Quebec is a nation, the core of Quebec is an ethnic group, the Quebecois, who have existed as a people since the days of New France as the descendents of the colonists. They signed on to thr BNA as their own distinct province of the British Empire. They have their own legal traditions, norms and language. Whereas Alberta is a multi ethnic polity created unilaterally as an administrative division of an established country with no distinct legal tradition, no ethnic animus, no established norms and no distinct culture beyond cosplaying cowboys for a few days a year. To paraphrase the leader of the Bloc, O&G does not a nation/culture make.

Line up a Manitoban, Saskatchewanian, Alberta, Ontarian, British Columbia or Territorial citizen and you will not be able to distinguish them whatsoever beyond some subtle speech patterns. This goes for their general culture too. This is not the case for a Quebecois. This aligns with the traditional understanding that Canada was the meeting of the two founding nations, the Anglos and the Francos coming to together in mutual defence against the American threat post civil war. This was later expanded to include the wrongfully neglected First Nations, Métis and Inuit.

Sure the clarity act doesnt explicitly state some provinces cant secede, it would ultimately be up to the SCC to interpret the legality of any such attempt. Ironically if Alberta became a country, they would be the post-national country that conservatives mock so much.

What a narrow view.

The Alberta beef and agriculture industries takes exception to your 2 day cos play comment. That is like saying the fisheries and seafaring were not part of the identity, traditions and culture of the Maritimes. O&G in fact does make a nation - without it you'd have nothing. And the rig hands are a distinct breed of humans to labor in those conditions. The hard work, long hours, and dangerous conditions are what define the bulk of Alberta's industries and defines the character of the people here (hard work, can-do attitude). It's different atmosphere than high rise offices and unionized factories, though some of that obviously exists also.

What makes one of Canada's official languages anymore special than the other? Quebec is as ethnically diverse as every other province.

 

[Blackadder1916]

As some are referring to what they think the Clarity Act and the preceding SCC opinion that lead to it says, perhaps it would be helpful to see what they actually say.

An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference

Federal laws of Canada

laws.justice.gc.ca

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii793/1998canlii793.html

154 We have also considered whether a positive legal entitlement to secession exists under international law in the factual circumstances contemplated by Question 1, i.e., a clear democratic expression of support on a clear question for Quebec secession. Some of those who supported an affirmative answer to this question did so on the basis of the recognized right to self-determination that belongs to all "peoples". Although much of the Quebec population certainly shares many of the characteristics of a people, it is not necessary to decide the "people" issue because, whatever may be the correct determination of this issue in the context of Quebec, a right to secession only arises under the principle of self-determination of peoples at international law where "a people" is governed as part of a colonial empire; where "a people" is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation; and possibly where "a people" is denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part. In other circumstances, peoples are expected to achieve self-determination within the framework of their existing state. A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity recognized by other states. Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development. In the circumstances, the National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec do not enjoy a right at international law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.

155 Although there is no right, under the Constitution or at international law, to unilateral secession, that is secession without negotiation on the basis just discussed, this does not rule out the possibility of an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession. The ultimate success of such a secession would be dependent on recognition by the international community, which is likely to consider the legality and legitimacy of secession having regard to, amongst other facts, the conduct of Quebec and Canada, in determining whether to grant or withhold recognition. Such recognition, even if granted, would not, however, provide any retroactive justification for the act of secession, either under the Constitution of Canada or at international law.

 

[KevinB]

Because Quebec is a nation, the core of Quebec is an ethnic group, the Quebecois, who have existed as a people since the days of New France as the descendents of the colonists. They signed on to thr BNA as their own distinct province of the British Empire.

They lost a War, and as such where not nearly in the position you seem to credit them with "joining"

They have their own legal traditions, norms and language. Whereas Alberta is a multi ethnic polity created unilaterally as an administrative division of an established country with no distinct legal tradition, no ethnic animus, no established norms and no distinct culture beyond cosplaying cowboys for a few days a year. To paraphrase the leader of the Bloc, O&G does not a nation/culture make.

One could very validly make the same comment about Quebec.

Line up a Manitoban, Saskatchewanian, Alberta, Ontarian, British Columbia or Territorial citizen and you will not be able to distinguish them whatsoever beyond some subtle speech patterns. This goes for their general culture too. This is not the case for a Quebecois. This aligns with the traditional understanding that Canada was the meeting of the two founding nations, the Anglos and the Francos coming to together in mutual defence against the American threat post civil war. This was later expanded to include the wrongfully neglected First Nations, Métis and Inuit.

Where did you go to school? You are glossing over the fact that England conquered New France. Period end stop, the whole plains of Abraham defeat left Canada under British rule, not any sort of joint endeavor. Upper and Lower Canada were still run as a British Territory, as where Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Lower Canada being able to keep aspects of the French system was simply an issue out of the ease of administration.

Sigh

 

[PrairieFella]

What a narrow view.

The Alberta beef and agriculture industries takes exception to your 2 day cos play comment. That is like saying the fisheries and seafaring were not part of the identity, traditions and culture of the Maritimes.

Except it's not unique. An Alberta beef farm is the exact same as a beef farm in SK, the Okanagan, Ontario farms or the one I grew up in MB.

O&G in fact does make a nation - without it you'd have nothing.

You're conflating country and nation, which is common in modern parlance to be fair. A nation is defined as a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. The industry which creates a plurality of GDP in a polity does not make a nation.

And the rig hands are a distinct breed of humans to labor in those conditions. The hard work, long hours, and dangerous conditions are what define the bulk of Alberta's industries and defines the character of the people here (hard work, can-do attitude). It's different atmosphere than high rise offices and unionized factories, though some of that obviously exists also.

There's no difference in toughness with any other miner in Canada. Does the Nickel Belt qualify as a nation because miners in Sudbury work hard?

What makes one of Canada's official languages anymore special than the other? Quebec is as ethnically diverse as every other province.

It's not anymore special, it's the core identity of most of the people that speak in Canada that are unique. Whether we like it or not, the Quebecois are a distinct people and the recognition as such is hundreds of years old, heck it was one of the Intolerable Acts to allow a francophone, catholic colony in as a distinct province of the Empire.

 

[PrairieFella]

They lost a War, and as such where not nearly in the position you seem to credit them with "joining"

Wrong time period. The union of 1867 was mutually negotiated, there was no guarantee Lower Canada joined the remainder of the Provinces in Confederation, Sir Georges-Étienne Cartier was instrumental in these negotiations.

One could very validly make the same comment about Quebec.

No, you can't.

Where did you go to school? You are glossing over the fact that England conquered New France. Period end stop, the whole plains of Abraham defeat left Canada under British rule, not any sort of joint endeavor. Upper and Lower Canada were still run as a British Territory, as where Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Lower Canada being able to keep aspects of the French system was simply an issue out of the ease of administration.

Sigh

As an American you should read into the Quebec Act which helped trigger your revolution. If the British Empire could recognize the Quebecois as distinct even after conquering them, we should listen. Sir Guy Carleton even said [Quebec is] “a province unlike any other, and its distinctive circumstances needed to be acknowledged.…”.

The British acceptance of "Popery" in the colonies was deemed a bridge too far for the almost universally protestant 13 colonies. Where did you go to school?

 

[KevinB]

Wrong time period. The union of 1867 was mutually negotiated, there was no guarantee Lower Canada joined the remainder of the Provinces in Confederation, Sir Georges-Étienne Cartier was instrumental in these negotiations.

The other choice was?
Absorption by America…

No, you can't.

As an American you should read into the Quebec Act which helped trigger your revolution. If the British Empire could recognize the Quebecois as distinct even after conquering them, we should listen. Sir Guy Carleton even said [Quebec is] “a province unlike any other, and its distinctive circumstances needed to be acknowledged.…”.

The British acceptance of "Popery" in the colonies was deemed a bridge too far for the almost universally protestant 13 colonies. Where did you go to school?

Yawn you may have missed I grew up in Ottawa.

The British allowed the Habitants to continue their agricultural activities, because it suited them. The Quebec Act got England exactly what it deserved by treating one set of subjects differently than others. So I see a lot of parallels in how Quebec is still treated to ‘keep it loyal’ at the expense of the rest of the country.

The fact Canada hasn’t seem to realize that yet is absurd.

 

[QV]

Except it's not unique. An Alberta beef farm is the exact same as a beef farm in SK, the Okanagan, Ontario farms or the one I grew up in MB. The western culture central to Alberta permeates into Sask, and BC, as well as Manitoba. It's pretty well non-existent after that. Much like Quebec's culture permeates into Ontario, NB and MB with their heavy francophone presence. The Maritime culture is distinctly different from the West Coast culture despite both speaking English and being on oceans. One is not in higher regard or has a special place over the other.

You're conflating country and nation, which is common in modern parlance to be fair. A nation is defined as a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. The industry which creates a plurality of GDP in a polity does not make a nation. A major industry defines a region. Like my example with the Maritimes.


There's no difference in toughness with any other miner in Canada. Does the Nickel Belt qualify as a nation because miners in Sudbury work hard?

It's not anymore special, it's the core identity of most of the people that speak in Canada that are unique. Whether we like it or not, the Quebecois are a distinct people and the recognition as such is hundreds of years old, heck it was one of the Intolerable Acts to allow a francophone, catholic colony in as a distinct province of the Empire. Quebec is no more unique or special than Western or Maritime culture. They've just been the most successful in getting what they want. Others have noticed and want that too.

 

[MilEME09]

Alberta's track record of taking the federal government to court and winning certainly indicates that maybe it is fighting a good fight.

they have also lost a large number of cases too, think its about 60/40 though in ABs favor

 

[The Bread Guy]

If they were able to 50.1% then they can have 50.1% of the land Alberta owns. No crown land, no Suffield, etc

FN reserves would also be off the AB map, then, too as federal lands.

 

[MilEME09]

I don't hear that.

Should we deny the people the right to succession from Canada if lawfully voted for ?

What do people expect, her to just ignore the movement ? It's not like it's a fringe movement any more.

She's says she supports a sovereign Alberta inside Canada. To me it sounds like she wants the right to hold the rest of country by the balls just like Que.

I disagree, her comments about the creation of a new party aren't about a magical separation party starting up on its own. It's to prevent the ucp from fracturing

https://twitter.com/x/status/1920616165929271570

 

[Fabius]

It's not clear if Alberta even has the ability to secede. Alberta was formed from the Northwest Territories unilaterally as a division of Canada, it is not an original Province of the Empire that negotiated the BNA, nor is it a true Nation as Quebec is. Add in the fact that 100% of the Province is Treaty land and that the Indigneous leadership are saying "go fuck yourselves" to separatists, it's certainly not clear or simple. Nevermind stupid and economically unviable.

Because Quebec is a nation, the core of Quebec is an ethnic group, the Quebecois, who have existed as a people since the days of New France as the descendents of the colonists. They signed on to thr BNA as their own distinct province of the British Empire. They have their own legal traditions, norms and language. Whereas Alberta is a multi ethnic polity created unilaterally as an administrative division of an established country with no distinct legal tradition, no ethnic animus, no established norms and no distinct culture beyond cosplaying cowboys for a few days a year. To paraphrase the leader of the Bloc, O&G does not a nation/culture make.

Line up a Manitoban, Saskatchewanian, Alberta, Ontarian, British Columbia or Territorial citizen and you will not be able to distinguish them whatsoever beyond some subtle speech patterns. This goes for their general culture too. This is not the case for a Quebecois. This aligns with the traditional understanding that Canada was the meeting of the two founding nations, the Anglos and the Francos coming to together in mutual defence against the American threat post civil war. This was later expanded to include the wrongfully neglected First Nations, Métis and Inuit.

Sure the clarity act doesnt explicitly state some provinces cant secede, it would ultimately be up to the SCC to interpret the legality of any such attempt. Ironically if Alberta became a country, they would be the post-national country that conservatives mock so much.

If I was to hazard a guess, the sentiment above and overall perspective is not conducive to convincing anyone in the West to not want to separate. In fact the message is likely to drive an increased desire for separation.

Just food for thought.

 

[Eaglelord17]

If I was to hazard a guess, the sentiment above and overall perspective is not conducive to convincing anyone in the West to not want to separate. In fact the message is likely to drive an increased desire for separation.

Just food for thought.

Generally desire to separate is created by isolation in the political process. Doesn't matter if there is 'culture' or not. If people feel excluded they won't want to join in, especially when they are funding a substantial portion of everyone else's budget (i.e. paying the cost of confederation well not receiving any benefits from it).

Over the last decade they have basically been told to STFU we are in charge and we will do what we want with your resources and money but without your say. It isn't surprising that they wouldn't want to be part of that. It basically sounds like a bad marriage, which without counselling and reconciliation will eventually lead to divorce.

 

[QV]

Imagine if Canada was trying to recruit another state into confederation and the deal was:

• we'll give you less representation in the senate than provinces a quarter your size
• we'll take revenue from you in taxes and re-distribute some of it to other provinces
• we'll do everything we can to limit your ability to export product from your major industry while we import same from elsewhere
• we'll mock and disparage your culture as something less than other provinces or regions

Sound like a deal? Or do you think there might be better options?

 

[PrairieFella]

Imagine if Canada was trying to recruit another state into confederation and the deal was:

• we'll give you less representation in the senate than provinces a quarter your size
• we'll take revenue from you in taxes and re-distribute some of it to other provinces
• we'll do everything we can to limit your ability to export product from your major industry while we import same from elsewhere
• we'll mock and disparage your culture as something less than other provinces or regions

Sound like a deal? Or do you think there might be better options?

You're right the logical thing to do instead of bringing forward meaningful, incremental changes with a far more sympathetic PM and to actually engage provincial neighbours is to go full nuclear and to become a landlocked hermit republic propped up by a diminishing resources or to become a state with even less representation in a democratically backsliding republic and losing Florida or New York levels of influence in favour of Kansas levels of influence. Good drills.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Imagine if Canada was trying to recruit another state into confederation and the deal was:

• we'll give you less representation in the senate than provinces a quarter your size
• we'll take revenue from you in taxes and re-distribute some of it to other provinces
• we'll do everything we can to limit your ability to export product from your major industry while we import same from elsewhere
• we'll mock and disparage your culture as something less than other provinces or regions

Sound like a deal? Or do you think there might be better options?

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau told interviewer Patrick Lagacé.

When asked whether he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans," Trudeau replied, "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes.

The Liberal party and Liberal-minded Canadians have a long history of disparaging Albertans.