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

[MilEME09]

She has denied being a separatist while advancing initiatives that only benefit separatists or separatism. He actions speak louder than her denial.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2014914960611017194

With US politicians talking about it now, its more and more like a covert attempt by the US to take AB. The feds to take a stance soon

 

[CBH99]

True, and to @brihard point of terrorism, if the end is forcefully damaging the crown by removing AB? I think a sedition and treason case can be made.

Hmmmmmmmm...maaayyybbbbeeeee...

Did anybody spill state secrets to an enemy state or entity that we are currently in an official state of war with, though?


Because treason is a pretty specific charge in the CC, requiring some pretty specific conversations to be had with some pretty specific entities during a pretty specific state of overall affairs.

...

I know how you feel though, because this kinda stuff can certainly seem treasonous.

It's just that the official definition as per the CC is quite narrow (and should be updated, imo)


I felt that same sentiment throughout most of Justin's time as PM, personally.

"Working with foreign entities and undermining what's best for the country..." is an easy subsection that could be added to the CC to help make it easier to hold people & politicians more accountable.

But I could also see that generating problems of it's own...

 

[GK .Dundas]

I was once told by a Lawyer that under the CCC treason was incredibly hard to prove . Also he wondered if any conviction would survive a charter challenge.

 

[IKnowNothing]

No reason they wouldn’t keep CPP earned to date unless Alberta basically bought the whole thing out. A Canadian who pays into CPP and later moves overseas is still entitled to and receives their benefits.

Which makes for a weird dichotomy between the parallel discussions of "APP for a more independent Alberta within Canada" and "How things look for Albertan's after hypothetical wholesale separation." The established mechanism that was studied/discussed for the former situation would not apply for the latter- transferring assets for a separate pension plan within the same country is not the same as individuals maintaining their accrued entitlements while living in a now separate country. Effectively they use the same pot of money- what the people of Alberta have paid in and the proceeds of such. Said money won't be paid/transferred twice.

Of course these ding dongs are going to double count it in their sales pitch to make things look as rosey as possible.

 

[brihard]

"Working with foreign entities and undermining what's best for the country..." is an easy subsection that could be added to the CC to help make it easier to hold people & politicians more accountable.

But I could also see that generating problems of it's own...

We already did that two summers ago. It wasn’t added to the Criminal Code, but rather the Security of Information Act added several new foreign interference offences and became the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act. These are all criminal too. Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act offences:


Intimidation, threats or violence (this one already existed)

• 20 (1) Every person commits an offence who, at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with, a foreign entity or a terrorist group, induces or attempts to induce, by intimidation, threat or violence, any person to do anything or to cause anything to be done.

Committing indictable offence for foreign entity

• 20.2 (1) Every person who commits an indictable offence under this or any other Act of Parliament at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with, a foreign entity is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.

Engaging in surreptitious or deceptive conduct

• 20.3 (1) Every person commits an indictable offence who, at the direction of, for the benefit of or in association with, a foreign entity, knowingly engages in surreptitious or deceptive conduct or omits, surreptitiously or with the intent to deceive, to do anything if the person’s conduct or omission is for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State or the person is reckless as to whether their conduct or omission is likely to harm Canadian interests.

Influencing political or governmental process

• 20.4 (1) Every person commits an indictable offence who, at the direction of, or in association with, a foreign entity, engages in surreptitious or deceptive conduct with the intent to influence a political or governmental process, educational governance, the performance of a duty in relation to such a process or such governance or the exercise of a democratic right in Canada.

All of these offences carry a maximum of life, and alll of them are subject to consecutive sentencing- so a sentence below life gets tacked on subsequent to other sentences rather than running concurrently.

They’re robust offences. I’ve not heard of any charges laid under them yet. To avoid sidetracks in this threat I think I remember this coming up in the general foreign interference thread.

 

[RangerRay]

Pravda and the Kremlin are joining the fun.

Russian Pravda News Platform Amplifying Alberta Secessionist Events - DisinfoWatch

Russia’s Pravda News Network has published what appears to be an AI generated video promoting an Alberta secessionist rally schedule for Monday, January 26, on its Russian VK social...

disinfowatch.org

Russia’s Pravda News Network has published what appears to be an AI generated video promoting an Alberta secessionist rally schedule for Monday, January 26, on its Russian VK social media platform.

The Pravda news network, also known as Portal Kombat, is a coordinated pro-Russian disinformation ecosystem first identified by the French government’s VIGINUM agency in early 2024. VIGINUM labelled it a network of “information portals” that do not produce original journalism but aggregate and republish pro-Kremlin content from Russian state media, social media channels, and other online sources. Its aim is to present the Russo-Ukrainian conflict and Western policies in ways that align with Kremlin narratives, often denigrating Ukraine and criticizing Western support for it. The network’s sites use automation and search-engine optimization to spread misleading content widely in multiple languages.

The network includes a dedicated Canadian section canada[dot]news-pravda[dot]com which aggregates news from multiple sites and publishes multiple pieces of content every day. Kremlin controlled media outlets such as RT and TASS are major sources as is the Russian Embassy in Canada.

An Alberta civil society organization, “Cyber Alberta” has warned that Pravda is targeting Canadian interests.

 

[Altair]

These Alberta seperatists don't realize they are the butt of the joke.

Notice globally people don't dunk on Quebec seperatists.

 

[JLB50]

I’m sure the CIA has their people in Alberta working with the separatists. In which case, I just wonder if CSIS is aware of their presence. Or if they are, what would they do to counter their efforts?

 

[QV]

I’m sure the CIA has their people in Alberta working with the separatists. In which case, I just wonder if CSIS is aware of their presence. Or if they are, what would they do to counter their efforts?

Doubtful. What does the US gain from a weakened and destabilized Canada? They don't want to absorb a social welfare state loaded with democrat voters.

The LPC doesn't need anymore help pushing that province out.

 

[brihard]

Doubtful. What does the US gain from a weakened and destabilized Canada? They don't want to absorb a social welfare state loaded with democrat voters.

The LPC doesn't need anymore help pushing that province out.

A weak, landlocked Alberta they could essentially leverage as a resource vassal if not incorporate outright as a territory, and a weakened, fractured Canada they could similarly vandalize. They don’t need to exercise sovereignty and take over full responsibility to exert control.

 

[QV]

A weak, landlocked Alberta they could essentially leverage as a resource vassal if not incorporate outright as a territory, and a weakened, fractured Canada they could similarly vandalize. They don’t need to exercise sovereignty and take over full responsibility to exert control.

Alberta is landlocked now by its own federal government.

It begs the question why has the LPC worked so hard to suppress Alberta? Is it because a Canada without Alberta would virtually guarantee LPC majority governments forever?

Carney’s MOU is dead in the water, he has categorically stated it survives only with first nations and BC consent. Not consultation to minimize impact, consent. He granted both groups veto power and set aside the federal governments constitutional obligation on this. That is not confederation.

 

[PrairieFella]

Alberta is landlocked now by its own federal government.

It begs the question why has the LPC worked so hard to suppress Alberta? Is it because a Canada without Alberta would virtually guarantee LPC majority governments forever?

Carney’s MOU is dead in the water, he has categorically stated it survives only with first nations and BC consent. Not consultation to minimize impact, consent. He granted both groups veto power and set aside the federal governments constitutional obligation on this. That is not confederation.

BC always needed to consent. Narural resources are provincial - if they have a hesitation about a pipeline in their territory thats their constitutional right. What is AB doing to negotiate beyond a history of "threatening to turn off the tap"? Money talks. I dig the conspiracy theory you added too lmao.

 

[IKnowNothing]

What is AB doing to negotiate beyond a history of "threatening to turn off the tap"? Money talks.

Share the resource royalty? Pay an outside party for something that party has that Alberta needs to generate the revenue?

Heresy!

 

[QV]

BC always needed to consent. Narural resources are provincial - if they have a hesitation about a pipeline in their territory thats their constitutional right. What is AB doing to negotiate beyond a history of "threatening to turn off the tap"? Money talks. I dig the conspiracy theory you added too lmao.

No, BC's consent is not constitutionally required. BC has no legal veto on this. But, PMMC refuses to pursue federal jurisdiction which he has stated. PMMC basically waived his hand and granted BC and First Nations a veto they have no constitutional authority to wield. Somewhere around S. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act refers to this.

So PMMC is talking out both sides of his mouth when he says "MOU" but stipulates he requires consent from BC/First Nations. He is flouting confederation for special interest groups, and so is Eby. He knows it's dead in the water. Major fail by the GoC.

 

[IKnowNothing]

No, BC's consent is not constitutionally required. BC has no legal veto on this. But, PMMC refuses to pursue federal jurisdiction which he has stated. PMMC basically waived his hand and granted BC and First Nations a veto they have no constitutional authority to wield. Somewhere around S. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act refers to this.

So PMMC is talking out both sides of his mouth when he says "MOU" but stipulates he requires consent from BC/First Nations. He is flouting confederation for special interest groups, and so is Eby. He knows it's dead in the water. Major fail by the GoC.

You're correct in that he could use 92 10a to declare Federal jurisdiction and bully it through.

But BC could put up a creative legal fight (which it would likely eventuallylose), the impacted first nations could put up a legal fight (which they might actually win). There would be fights about the whole project. There would be fights about smaller incremental aspects of the project. It would be a messy, long, divisive process counterproductive to actually getting things done.

Sometimes/ often the fastest way to get things done is to seemingly take your time up front and get buy in. Sometimes buy in has to be bought.

 

[QV]

You're correct in that he could use 92 10a to declare Federal jurisdiction and bully it through.

But BC could put up a creative legal fight (which it would likely eventuallylose), the impacted first nations could put up a legal fight (which they might actually win). There would be fights about the whole project. There would be fights about smaller incremental aspects of the project. It would be a messy, long, divisive process counterproductive to actually getting things done.

Sometimes/ often the fastest way to get things done is to seemingly take your time up front and get buy in. Sometimes buy in has to be bought.

The first nations would also loose provided there were good faith consultations.

The time for playing footsies on major projects of national importance are over. These sorts of things need to be rammed through urgently with all the power a constitutional confederation can muster. The future economic prosperity, unity, and security of the nation require it. Projects like this are in the national interest.

But... those who are playing at politics are risking all of that.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The first nations would also loose provided there were good faith consultations.

......

These sorts of things need to be rammed through urgently with all the power a constitutional confederation can muster.

Surely you can grasp that checking a box for a decision already made and being "rammed through urgently with all the power a constitutional confederation can muster" just might not pass muster as a "good faith consultation"?

Put on the adult pants, do the work. Your Premier seems to get that, at least in concept. The real test is in whether she will pull a Redford or find a way get a deal done.

 

[QV]

Impossible to fulfill demands can't unnecessarily delay progress. Once the Crown has listened, responded, and adjusted where appropriate, the legal duty to consult has been fulfilled whether or not the first nations group or province agrees with the project or not.

 

[suffolkowner]

how much of a lineup is there to build a $34B pipeline when WCS is $45

 

[IKnowNothing]

Impossible to fulfill demands can't unnecessarily delay progress. Once the Crown has listened, responded, and adjusted where appropriate, the legal duty to consult has been fulfilled whether or not the first nations group or province agrees with the project or not.

Maybe- but to play that card and be able to use the "in good faith" premise you need have atleast a plausible presentation of Asking -> Listening -> Evaluating > Deciding

Deciding -> Asking -> Pretending to Listen and Evaluate , doesn't cut it.

Hence MOU, hence actually engaging.

Pushing through unreasonableness has to wait for the unreasonableness to be presented and be shown immovable by other means