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

[Altair]

When I get the chance, I will. Trouble is, that many times it leads down a rabbit hole, which I don't have time for right now.

No rush.

I'm just curious as to the answer it will give.

Be sure to keep me up to date on it.

 

[Booter]

Chat gpt just says it makes a significant legal and political challenge but wouldn’t make it impossible.

 

[Altair]

Chat gpt just says it makes a significant legal and political challenge but wouldn’t make it impossible.

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-lois.justice.gc.ca

Constitutional amendments

3 (1) It is recognized that there is no right under the Constitution of Canada to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally and that, therefore, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada would be required for any province to secede from Canada, which in turn would require negotiations involving at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada.

(2) No Minister of the Crown shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect the secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.

Best of luck with that.

 

[Booter]

you asked. I said what ChatGPT said. I don’t care about either sides true believers and throwing shit at each other.

 

[lenaitch]

Instead of searching all over the place, I entered the following criteria in AI.
In Canada. Alberta referendum. First Nations. Does the duty to consult FN include voting and veto power

Here's what it responded with.

No, the Canadian constitutional "duty to consult" First Nations (and other Indigenous groups with asserted or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights) does not include giving them voting rights in a provincial referendum or a veto power over its outcome. thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

What the Duty to Consult Actually RequiresUnder Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Crown (federal or provincial government) has a duty to consult Indigenous groups—and, where appropriate, accommodate their concerns—when it contemplates conduct that could adversely affect their rights. This stems from the honour of the Crown (key case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia, 2004 SCC 73). thecanadianencyclopedia.ca

Scope: It is a procedural duty focused on good-faith engagement, information sharing, and listening to concerns. The depth varies (shallow to deep) based on the strength of the claim and potential impact.

Accommodation: This can include modifying plans, mitigation measures, or compensation, but the Crown retains the ultimate decision-making authority after balancing interests.

No veto: Courts have repeatedly held that consultation does not grant Indigenous groups a veto. The Crown can proceed even without agreement if the duty is fulfilled reasonably. Consent is only required in rare cases of established Aboriginal title to the land in question. arcticreview.no

This applies to many government actions (e.g., resource projects, land use) but has limits (e.g., it generally does not apply directly to law-making itself).Application to Alberta Referendums and First NationsRecent Alberta court decisions (2025–2026) on Alberta independence/secession referendums (under the Citizen Initiative Act) confirm this framework: fasken.com

Courts ruled that approving a petition or advancing a secession referendum triggers the duty to consult because it could adversely affect Treaty rights (e.g., hunting, fishing, mobility rights under Treaties 6, 7, 8, as secession might alter constitutional protections or create borders). edmontonjournal.com

Alberta breached the duty by not consulting before key steps (e.g., petition approval), leading to referendums being halted or delayed.
Consultation is required before proceeding with the process, but this is about engagement/accommodation—not a right to vote in the referendum or block it outright. mondaq.com

First Nations do not get special voting rights in the referendum itself. Referendums are open to eligible Alberta voters under provincial election rules. There is no general Indigenous veto over citizen initiatives or referendum questions. s3.documentcloud.org

Key Limits and Context Voting: No automatic inclusion or weighted vote for First Nations members in provincial referendums. Eligible band members who are Alberta residents can vote like other citizens.

Veto claims: Some intervenors or leaders have argued for consent in extreme cases (like secession impacting treaties), but courts emphasize no general veto. The duty is about process and balancing, not an absolute block. ici.radio-canada.ca

Post-referendum: If a "yes" vote occurred on secession, further duties (including deeper consultation or negotiations) would likely arise, potentially involving Canada as well.

In short, the duty to consult is a significant procedural safeguard that has already blocked or slowed Alberta's recent secession referendum efforts due to lack of prior consultation. However, it stops well short of voting rights or veto power for First Nations. This area evolves through case law; recent Alberta rulings highlight its breadth for high-impact constitutional questions. For the most current legal advice, consult a lawyer specializing in Indigenous or constitutional law.

I will counter that I believe all of the senior court decisions placing limits on scope of FN consultation predate the 2021 passing of the federal United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, and that the true scope of the duty to consult remains in question.

 

[MilEME09]

Foreign interference everywhere, all to make money off a situation

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/facebook-overseas-alberta-separtism-9.7223966

 

[daftandbarmy]

Foreign interference everywhere, all to make money off a situation

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/facebook-overseas-alberta-separtism-9.7223966

"There's a sucker born every minute." P.T. Barnum

 

[Jarnhamar]

Foreign interference everywhere, all to make money off a situation

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/facebook-overseas-alberta-separtism-9.7223966

I'm convinced 87% of the people who incessantly post about Alberta separatism are from overseas accounts.

 

[Altair]

I'm convinced 87% of the people who incessantly post about Alberta separatism are from overseas accounts.

i resent that.

 

[MilEME09]

i resent that.

Shall we start a go fund me to let you move to Thailand then to fit in with the cool kids? sarcasm

 

[Jarnhamar]

Shall we start a go fund me to let you move to Thailand then to fit in with the cool kids? sarcasm

It's funny though, we're so ridiculous we're being trolled by * checks notes * noodle merchants from Indonesia.

 

[Altair]

Shall we start a go fund me to let you move to Thailand then to fit in with the cool kids? sarcasm

I've heard stories of Bangkok and I'm happily married...so no.

Maybe?

No.

 

[mariomike]

I've heard stories of Bangkok and I'm happily married...so no.

Stories of "Sex-pat" stereotypes? Lol emoji

 

[Altair]

Stories of "Sex-pat" stereotypes? Lol emoji

I may get banned here someday, but not today and not over that.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I will counter that I believe all of the senior court decisions placing limits on scope of FN consultation predate the 2021 passing of the federal United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, and that the true scope of the duty to consult remains in question.

Lotsa litigation out there on consultation, much of it pre-UNDRIP, but has any court come out with a decision, pre- or post-UNDRIP, saying SPECIFICALLY that Indigenous consent is a prerequisite for secession? I've been out of tracking such stuff for a few years, but I suspect "no" because if there had been, we'd hear about it all over the place. As always, I stand to be corrected, though

... it makes a significant legal and political challenge but wouldn’t make it impossible.

You'll never make a great meme or gotcha quote with THAT kinda slogan

 

[Altair]

Lotsa litigation out there on consultation, much of it pre-UNDRIP, but has any court come out with a decision, pre- or post-UNDRIP, saying SPECIFICALLY that Indigenous consent is a prerequisite for secession? I've been out of tracking such stuff for a few years, but I suspect "no" because if there had been, we'd hear about it all over the place. As always, I stand to be corrected, though

You'll never make a great meme or gotcha quote with THAT kinda slogan

Not in so many words, but the SCOC has come out and said that provinces cannot separate unilaterally and that a province does not "own" treaty land in a way that allows it to dissolve or override the treaties governing that land.

To separate a province would somehow need to clear the hurdle of getting indigenous groups to go along with breaking that treaty with the land in question, which if it isn't a veto, might as well be one.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Not in so many words, but the SCOC has come out and said that provinces cannot separate unilaterally and that a province does not "own" treaty land in a way that allows it to dissolve or override the treaties governing that land.

To separate a province would somehow need to clear the hurdle of getting indigenous groups to go along with breaking that treaty with the land in question, which if it isn't a veto, might as well be one.

In other words, case law so far says Treaties are ....

... a significant legal and political challenge but wouldn’t make (separation) impossible.

... so tons of lawyers stand to make tons of money sorting out the questions (some of which haven't been asked or answered yet in court), not to mention helping facilitate any re-negotiation of Treaties (that sounds 1) likely in the current climate, and 2) easy).

My "guy in the basement on his computer" read: while FNs don't have a specific, discrete "veto/do not pass go" legal button to push, a LOT of slices of Swiss cheese would have to line up for the holes to line up in favour of any faction wanting to create a new country in the current borders of Canada with Indigenous blessing.

Separatist optimists might call that "never say never about a deal with FNs" or "every man has his price," while others may say "might as well say it'll never happen based on how hard it might be." Pick one

 

[Altair]

In other words, case law so far says Treaties are ....

... so tons of lawyers stand to make tons of money sorting out the questions (some of which haven't been asked or answered yet in court), not to mention helping facilitate any re-negotiation of Treaties (that sounds 1) likely in the current climate, and 2) easy).

My "guy in the basement on his computer" read: while FNs don't have a specific, discrete "veto/do not pass go" legal button to push, a LOT of slices of Swiss cheese would have to line up for the holes to line up in favour of any faction wanting to create a new country in the current borders of Canada with Indigenous blessing.

Separatist optimists might call that "never say never about a deal with FNs" or "every man has his price," while others may say "might as well say it'll never happen based on how hard it might be." Pick one

It's not impossible.

It's just highly improbable.

Every group that seems to want to even try separation first looks to work around first nations, not work with them.

Next they try to work around treaty rights.

And if those two fail they just say they will ignore it.

But as far as I understand it, provinces have jurisdiction over the land, and administer it, but they don't own it. Under the constitution, the land is owned by the treaty owner in a deal between them and the crown, in this case the federal government.

To separate is to cede jurisdiction over the land, in other words, Alberta the province can leave, but the land stays, and in which case, what is separating from what exactly?

 

[The Bread Guy]

... if those two fail they just say they will ignore it.

Yup.

But as far as I understand it, provinces have jurisdiction over the land, and administer it, but they don't own it. Under the constitution, the land is owned by the treaty owner in a deal between them and the crown, in this case the federal government.

Happy to hear different from any provincial types, but my understanding is that provincial Crown Land is owned by the province in question. That said, that doesn't mean they can do whatever the hell they want on it.

 

[Altair]

Yup.

Happy to hear different from any provincial types, but my understanding is that provincial Crown Land is owned by the province in question. That said, that doesn't mean they can do whatever the hell they want on it.

They do up to and until it runs into treaty deals, which because of section 35, Section 35 constitutionally entrenches these treaty rights, a province has no legal power to alter, inherit, or cancel a federal treaty unilaterally.