Thank you for the warning Charlie. I can’t get over the ineptitude of our current government to investigate this. Too preoccupied with making deals left and right to look at what’s happening in the underbelly?
Canada better wake up before it's too late. Just take one look at what happened in the U.S. with Trump and MAGA. We all know the playbook and the players. Time to act is now.
The good news is, these bad actors are known to us. The better news is that the Alberta NDP are wise to what’s going on and are keeping Albertans and Canadians informed. The BEST news is, the Albertan First Nations know how many beans make five, and have told the separatists to pound salt. Keep up the fantastic work Charlie.
It would be ridiculously naive to believe that Mark Carney and his Government are unaware of all that Charlie has written about so powerfully. The only question is why, despite being aware, does Mark Carney do sweet nothing?
OMG Charlie, I am now truly afraid for our beautiful country. Your explication of the dystopian process now threatening Canada is illuminating and every Canadian needs to rise up in defiance. We can do this. We must do this!
Thank you for all the good parliamentary work you did, Charlie, to try to get to the bottom of Canada's involvement in abetting Brexit. "I'm not taking the fall", indeed.
Likewise, I learned more about the nefarious Steve Bannon: I did not realize he'd worked for Cambridge Analytica.
____
In the USA, as a point of comparison, the investigative team at This Will Hold has now concluded that the extensive, corrupt manipulation of US voting (vote-flipping in this case) ramped up exponentially with the adoption of electronic vote counting machines. That's what? 30-40 years?
Thanks Charlie. This was both incredibly comprehensive and infuriating. We already have the evidence of American interference with money and several meetings taken place with the Principals of the Alberta separation movement. Has Canada and the RCMP begun foreign influence investigation?
I don't understand how the Canadian courts can make 2 decisions that the referendum can not be held and yet Danielle Smith can hold a referendum on the referendum? Is that not the very definition of contempt of court?
I hope out Canadian officials in Ottawa are not naive about this foreign threat. Surely they are not that stupid. The British have regret their decision for the past 10 years as they were clearly misled and lied to. In fact now they would like a vote to Breturn to the EU.
Prime Minister Carney was the head of the Bank of England at that time and was one of the first major British officials to respond to the Leave vote. If not for him taking the Lead, a serious financial consequence would have emerged. He directed the British government to the steps to deal with the impending financial collapse. He would be acutely aware of the dangers to both Alberta and Canada if such a breach were to occur. I would think he has a plan and program to counter this separatist referendum.
At any rate these referenda do violate the Indigenous People's treaty with Canada and the Treaty must be upheld. I sincerely hope it works out that way.
To me the most relevant part is to get ALL Canadians to recognize that Canada and Canadian Provinces do not exclusively "own" this land in the foreign Western European Westphalian sense.
The Canadian government has been useless in trying to deal with this because it is a problem that it created, and has been unwilling to fix its fundamental mistakes. Ottawa created Alberta in 1905 based on lies about "purchasing" that land from a company that had no title to land. Alberta was not a colony that brought land claims into confederation, but an invention of Ottawa to govern lands which Ottawa never had legitimate claims to.
If Canadians don't quickly move to demanding that Canadian governments Honour the Treaties with pre-existing nations on this continent, then we need to ask what exactly was the point of fighting against the separatists in the 1775 civil war between British North American colonies?
Alberta Has Been Freeloading Off First Nations for a Century. Now Smith Wants to Audit Them.
A different thread under this article led to an interesting discussion of loyalties, and how some people attach specific institutions (US government, Canadian government, Alberta government, Quebec government) to their personal identities.
Yeah, i always figured there was some monkey business with Brexit and Trump. I ‘m expecting Alberta will vote to separate for the same reasons. I’ve already started moving my retirement savings out of Alberta.
Love you Charlie and team. You are the epitome of what a true loyal Canadian is. Thank you for your hard work and pit bull tenacity.
You are right the nefarious intentions are crystal clear and I wrote our PM, Leblanc, Joly, and CBC and CTV news on what was happening in early spring 2025 as I was closely following Smith and others and knew there was treasonous activity. Before it came out in the media.
I do want to raise another point.
At some time in the future we are going to have to address the larger issue in Canada that being why can provinces separate at all. No other democratic country has this mechanism as we do.
Why aren’t we disabling this. No province or territory should be able to just break up a country. It’s absolutely asinine that the high majority of Canada is facing this threat. When a province joined Confederation that exit should disappear.
You’re in period.
In Albertas case it was 1905.
Treaties in Alberta were decades before that signed with the federal crown and the Queen of England. They predate the province of Alberta existing. Alberta was created at the time out of the NWT.
We need to find a way to shut this down permanently as a country. It is going to be more challenging in the future on this planet and having parts of the country threaten to break up the country will only destabilize us and this needs to be addressed permanently.
The Government of Alberta should be able to leave. The question is: do they have any legitimate claim to land, and the answer is no.
The District of Athabasca should be allowed self-determination, free of foreign interference from the distant capital in Edmonton.
-----Update----
Adding a link to avoid people thinking that "The Government of Alberta" is the name of a place, or that I was suggesting that the LAND could leave with individual settlers who wanted to leave. I think most Canadians would be happy to subsidize one-way tickets for these separatists (some people, also not a place) to leave.
If Canada is severable, then so are its provinces
Debunking one of the more nonsensical aspects of Canada's White Nationalist/Separatist movements
Those in Alberta government are free to leave. They can pack their personal belongings only and many would drive them to the border to see them off.
Clearly you are a separatist and part of that seditious group trying to break up the country. Or maybe you’re a foreign operator or a paid propaganda agent. Or troll. Don’t really care which.
By the way if you’re going to troll the comments try to get the civics 101 right.
There’s no such thing as District of Athabasca. There is the province of Saskatchewan. Alberta. And a small part of Manitoba. If you’re in SK or AB wanting to leave pack your personal bags only and head to the border.
I think you read my comment backward. I was saying the same thing you are wanting to say, only using specific legal and historical references.
"Alberta" is not the name of a place, but the name of a set of government institutions that the Dominion of Canada government in Ottawa created in 1905. I was saying that the land wouldn't leave with the individual settlers who can leave any time they want.
Ignore the notes in that page which are Canadian government propaganda -- the Dominion government did not purchase land from the Hudsons Bay Company as Hudson's Bay didn't have any land claims (only what can be termed a trade agreement), and the numbered treaties prove that the Dominion government knew that.
Prior to 1905, those regions were using names as districts of the North West Territories.
If you look at the names that the Dominion of Canada used in 1901 you will see exactly what I was referring to.
The suggestion that we rescind Alberta Act 1905 does not mean that the land leaves with separatists: quite the opposite.
Note: The Dominion of Canada was rebranded as only "Canada" in 1982. That is why the longer (and more correct) name is used to discuss these activities which happened prior to 1982.
You're chatting with one of likely only a few here who have done extensive work (decades) on Aboriginal legal cases, involving Canadian history, including Constitutional questions. I'm not an expert by any means, however, I've done a lot of research at archives over my lifetime.
Regarding the Dominion government purchasing lands. Yes they did. That was the Rupert's Land sale in 1869/1870. The largest real estate transaction in Canada's history.
1670 King Charles II granted Rupert's Land by British Royal Charter to HBC. Rupert's Land was named after a cousin of Charles II, the first appointed Governor of HBC.
Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory is 8 Million square km, including most of the prairies, parts of Northern Quebec, Northern Ontario, and Nunavut.
Under some pressure by Great Britain, HBC agrees to sell Rupert's Land to the Government of Canada, by two Memoranda, dated March 22, and 29th, 1869 for $1.5M.
Deed of Surrender (ref # CO42/694). Transfer effective date: July 15, 1870.
1. The Hudson's Bay Company to surrender to Her Majesty all the rights of Government, property, &c., in Rupert's Land which are specified in 31 &32 Vict., cap. 105, sec. 4; and also all similar rights in any other part of British North America, not comprised in Rupert's Land, Canada or British Columbia.
2. Canada is to pay to the Company 300,000 pounds., when Rupert's Land is transferred to the Dominion of Canada.
In 1870 the Dominion of Canada admitted Rupert's Land and the NWT into Canada. The combined territory became known as the North-West Territories.
Alberta was carved out of the North-West Territories in 1905.
Agreed, it would NOT leave with separatists as it was created AFTER the treaties, Treaty 6, (1876) Treaty 7, (1877) and Treaty 8 (1899). Incidentally, the last First Nation to sign Treaty 8 was in 2000 (McLeod Lake Indian Band).
My point is that as a country we need to remove exit ramps for provinces to leave the country. There should not be a means to break up a country, apart from wide scale Civil War, of which we are not in that situation.
There is no mechanism in other parliamentary systems like Canada or the USA under their Republic, though they are at greater risk of outright Civil War today than ever in my lifetime.
I consider Quebec a unique situation because of how it came into Confederation, and they are still governed by Napoleonic law, not British Common law as all of the rest of Canada is. Dealing with Quebec is also an issue but I will leave it to Quebec legal scholars to frame solutions to this.
As far as current legal questions for Alberta separation - this would set off at least 50 years of legal battles in my estimation should a Referendum succeed, which I don't believe it would. Firstly, the numbers are not there. But, for sake of argument say there was sufficient numbers, this would set off a legal battle for many decades.
It would need to be presented to the Federal government who would weigh in on the question itself, to ensure it met the test, and a sufficient majority would need to be proven. This is outlined in the Clarity Act.
If any doubt was to be had, the federal government can shut that down.
We already know the First Nations don't want to separate period. Alberta is fully consisting of treaty lands, and treaties 6, and 8 overlap into BC, Manitoba, and the NWT. Part of treaty 10, mainly in Manitoba also is in Alberta.
Therefore, First Nations immediately would fire off many lawsuits, which would take decades to work through the courts given the newness of this subject, and complexity.
Alberta citizens would file lawsuits against the Alberta government and others.
Canadian citizens would file lawsuits against the Alberta government and others.
After these and many other legal hurdles, if it proceeded the Constitution would be opened up as all provinces have to agree. Not going to happen.
Furthermore, during the Constitutional Conferences held across the country between 1979-1982, with First Nations, the Federal government agreed not to change the Constitution until there was consensus between First Nations bands. Part of those Constitutional conferences involved discussions with indigenous people regarding changes to the 1951 Indian Act, and addressing in particular band membership and treaty rights of women. Namely, if an indigenous woman married a white man, she and her children lost treaty benefits/rights. Conversely, if an indigenous man married a white woman she gained membership and treaty entitlements. Clearly this was discriminatory. Discussions were held regarding those beliefs by group, and the government came up with a band aid which did not fix this issue, resulting in the 1985 Indian Act amendments, and 1988 amendments. This is where the 2nd generation cut-off (or double mother clauses) came into being. These rights were enshrined in Sec. 35 of the Constitution, particularly sec 35(4) is the indigenous equivalent to section 15 of the Charter, and was meant to redress the lack of equal rights for both men and women.
Because indigenous groups themselves don't agree on many things, including abolishing the Indian Act (some find it an important promise and agreement with the government, some do not) and some groups believe in indigenous women losing their standing if they marry a white man, which is contrary to sec. 35(4) it is unlikely that agreement across the many groups could be achieved on some of these issues, never mind the issues of rewriting the Constitution for Alberta separatists. It won't happen.
There is quite a bit there that is the official Canadian colonial version of history I strongly disagree with, mixed in with more neutral statements.
I disagree with the Canadian narrative about what was actually granted to HBC. What they had was an exclusive patent grant -- a monopoly on Europeans doing business in the region -- something similar to a trade agreement. The false claim that this agreement related to land is at best the greatest land theft in history, although since you can’t buy something from someone that doesn’t own something, the fact is Canada has never “owned” that land in a (foreign Western European) Westphalian enclosure exclusive way.
Each province has a fairly unique story, so while there are some that want to fixate on Quebec and claim the rest of Canada is the same, that is not at all true. I included specific mention of Quebec in https://r.flora.ca/p/if-canada-is-severable as there is far more literature explaining how what the Quebec sovereignty movement wants is impossible.
(Although I believe a "Yes" vote would generate a constitutional opening for Ungava to separate from Quebec, as those territorial expansions should never have happened).
The belief that Quebec is a "more special" situation seems to come from a conflation of the contemporary use of the word Quebec with earlier uses of the same name by a different European Empire that predate the Seven Years War.
There are also critically different population density differences, given 70% of Canada's population is south of the 49th parallel while 80% of the land that Canada claims title to is north of the 49th parallel.
Unlike domestic (meaning, Indigenous) nations, France lost a war and ceded all of its (bogus, Doctrine of Discovery, blah) land claims to the mainland of this continent. While P.E. Trudeau loved to claim that First Nations were conquered peoples but French settlers were not, the opposite is true.
(Note: I have some ancestry that goes back to New France, so I'm not pointing to some "other". I speak English, but I'm not a loyalist to that European Empire either. I'm a settler of Scottish, Irish and French descent, who was born on this land, and who is not loyal to the *systems* of Canada)
If we start in 1763, after the Seven Years War which is the only thing that makes sense if you want to believe that the contemporary distinction between what is currently called Ontario and Quebec makes any sense, we are talking about British Colonies. It is allowed different legal structures only as a matter of Provincial law within the co-sovereign nature of the Canadian Constitution. When it comes to land claims, and the massive territorial extensions that it and "Ontario" were granted after the first British North America Act in 1867, they are the same.
And I believe those territorial extensions should be rescinded.
I'm curious if you ever watched these documentaries. Something extremely different happened in those conferences than the official colonial (meaning, propaganda) version, and it is even visible in NFB documentaries.
Why should all the nationalities in this region all be expected to agree? The region that some call “Canada” is about the size of the entire continent of Europe, and has more relationally sovereign nationalities than there are Westphalian nations in Europe. I notice that at this very moment that Europe is still at war with itself, as it has been for pretty much my entire life (one way or another).
The fact that “Canada” wants to treat these nationalities as individuals or “interest groups” has made fixing Canada’s mistakes impossible, something I consider to be deliberate on the part of those foreign institutions.
We'll have to leave the conversation here. You do have your mind made up on some things. That's fine. Having spent decades in archives, looking at the actual documents, including documents from indigenous peoples to the government I write the facts as they were, and are. If you want to take a position that the documents were false or non-representative then that is of course your prerogative. Largely these have been settled in various legal cases already, including Rupert's land.
I can't comment on conspiracy theories and am not prepared to go down those rabbit holes. I'm interested in what Canada can achieve, and working with people to move forward, not re-litigate all aspects of our history. Cheers.
Excellent summation. And much needed warning. It CAN happen here. Helping folks get their heads out of their asses is good, much needed work. Especially in Alberta. THANKS!
Thank you for the warning Charlie. I can’t get over the ineptitude of our current government to investigate this. Too preoccupied with making deals left and right to look at what’s happening in the underbelly?
Canada better wake up before it's too late. Just take one look at what happened in the U.S. with Trump and MAGA. We all know the playbook and the players. Time to act is now.
The good news is, these bad actors are known to us. The better news is that the Alberta NDP are wise to what’s going on and are keeping Albertans and Canadians informed. The BEST news is, the Albertan First Nations know how many beans make five, and have told the separatists to pound salt. Keep up the fantastic work Charlie.
It would be ridiculously naive to believe that Mark Carney and his Government are unaware of all that Charlie has written about so powerfully. The only question is why, despite being aware, does Mark Carney do sweet nothing?
Thank you for assembling "deck." Makes a lot of history easier to carry around.
(Although NOT going to the Calgary Stampede would be a political mistake.
Albertans are a special breed of longhorn, herding together for the sights and smells.)
OMG Charlie, I am now truly afraid for our beautiful country. Your explication of the dystopian process now threatening Canada is illuminating and every Canadian needs to rise up in defiance. We can do this. We must do this!
Thank you Charlie for remaining our canary in the mine, still breathing and kicking at the sooty darkness
And the thing is ... we (US) feel so stupid now on the inside, looking out....
Thank you for this terrifying article.
We're kicking at shadows.
Our fellow Canadians who want to still be Canadian need our help in Alberta.
What can we do as individuals to help?
Support the Forever Canada Movement so people who do not want to separate from this great country know we care and support them.
We can do this coast to coast to coast.
We should stand up with our First Nations People on this matter .
There probably is a face book or other group for Forever Canada that could sure use some encouraging words of support at the very least.
Show your support person to person from wherever you live to those striving to keep our wonderful diverse country of Canada together.
To those on the front lines in Alberta we stand with you.
This is a serious issue for our country.
But we have to trust our fellow Canadians who are voted to and employed to protect us .
I agree with John Psutka's writing below here Prime Minister Mark Carney has seen this before.
Deeply !
Although we have the extra threat of the U.S. coveting our resources and our country.
Thank you for all the good parliamentary work you did, Charlie, to try to get to the bottom of Canada's involvement in abetting Brexit. "I'm not taking the fall", indeed.
Likewise, I learned more about the nefarious Steve Bannon: I did not realize he'd worked for Cambridge Analytica.
____
In the USA, as a point of comparison, the investigative team at This Will Hold has now concluded that the extensive, corrupt manipulation of US voting (vote-flipping in this case) ramped up exponentially with the adoption of electronic vote counting machines. That's what? 30-40 years?
https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p/clint-curtis-and-the-vote-flipping
Thanks Charlie. This was both incredibly comprehensive and infuriating. We already have the evidence of American interference with money and several meetings taken place with the Principals of the Alberta separation movement. Has Canada and the RCMP begun foreign influence investigation?
I don't understand how the Canadian courts can make 2 decisions that the referendum can not be held and yet Danielle Smith can hold a referendum on the referendum? Is that not the very definition of contempt of court?
I hope out Canadian officials in Ottawa are not naive about this foreign threat. Surely they are not that stupid. The British have regret their decision for the past 10 years as they were clearly misled and lied to. In fact now they would like a vote to Breturn to the EU.
Prime Minister Carney was the head of the Bank of England at that time and was one of the first major British officials to respond to the Leave vote. If not for him taking the Lead, a serious financial consequence would have emerged. He directed the British government to the steps to deal with the impending financial collapse. He would be acutely aware of the dangers to both Alberta and Canada if such a breach were to occur. I would think he has a plan and program to counter this separatist referendum.
At any rate these referenda do violate the Indigenous People's treaty with Canada and the Treaty must be upheld. I sincerely hope it works out that way.
I agree with every point you make John. Makes me want to march on Parliament with my trusty shovel.
To me the most relevant part is to get ALL Canadians to recognize that Canada and Canadian Provinces do not exclusively "own" this land in the foreign Western European Westphalian sense.
The Canadian government has been useless in trying to deal with this because it is a problem that it created, and has been unwilling to fix its fundamental mistakes. Ottawa created Alberta in 1905 based on lies about "purchasing" that land from a company that had no title to land. Alberta was not a colony that brought land claims into confederation, but an invention of Ottawa to govern lands which Ottawa never had legitimate claims to.
If Canada is severable, then so are its provinces
https://r.flora.ca/p/if-canada-is-severable
If Canadians don't quickly move to demanding that Canadian governments Honour the Treaties with pre-existing nations on this continent, then we need to ask what exactly was the point of fighting against the separatists in the 1775 civil war between British North American colonies?
Alberta Has Been Freeloading Off First Nations for a Century. Now Smith Wants to Audit Them.
https://indigenousinsider.substack.com/p/alberta-has-been-freeloading-off
A different thread under this article led to an interesting discussion of loyalties, and how some people attach specific institutions (US government, Canadian government, Alberta government, Quebec government) to their personal identities.
https://r.flora.ca/p/the-failure-of-the-signal-flare
Yeah, i always figured there was some monkey business with Brexit and Trump. I ‘m expecting Alberta will vote to separate for the same reasons. I’ve already started moving my retirement savings out of Alberta.
Love you Charlie and team. You are the epitome of what a true loyal Canadian is. Thank you for your hard work and pit bull tenacity.
You are right the nefarious intentions are crystal clear and I wrote our PM, Leblanc, Joly, and CBC and CTV news on what was happening in early spring 2025 as I was closely following Smith and others and knew there was treasonous activity. Before it came out in the media.
I do want to raise another point.
At some time in the future we are going to have to address the larger issue in Canada that being why can provinces separate at all. No other democratic country has this mechanism as we do.
Why aren’t we disabling this. No province or territory should be able to just break up a country. It’s absolutely asinine that the high majority of Canada is facing this threat. When a province joined Confederation that exit should disappear.
You’re in period.
In Albertas case it was 1905.
Treaties in Alberta were decades before that signed with the federal crown and the Queen of England. They predate the province of Alberta existing. Alberta was created at the time out of the NWT.
We need to find a way to shut this down permanently as a country. It is going to be more challenging in the future on this planet and having parts of the country threaten to break up the country will only destabilize us and this needs to be addressed permanently.
The Government of Alberta should be able to leave. The question is: do they have any legitimate claim to land, and the answer is no.
The District of Athabasca should be allowed self-determination, free of foreign interference from the distant capital in Edmonton.
-----Update----
Adding a link to avoid people thinking that "The Government of Alberta" is the name of a place, or that I was suggesting that the LAND could leave with individual settlers who wanted to leave. I think most Canadians would be happy to subsidize one-way tickets for these separatists (some people, also not a place) to leave.
If Canada is severable, then so are its provinces
Debunking one of the more nonsensical aspects of Canada's White Nationalist/Separatist movements
https://r.flora.ca/p/if-canada-is-severable
Those in Alberta government are free to leave. They can pack their personal belongings only and many would drive them to the border to see them off.
Clearly you are a separatist and part of that seditious group trying to break up the country. Or maybe you’re a foreign operator or a paid propaganda agent. Or troll. Don’t really care which.
By the way if you’re going to troll the comments try to get the civics 101 right.
There’s no such thing as District of Athabasca. There is the province of Saskatchewan. Alberta. And a small part of Manitoba. If you’re in SK or AB wanting to leave pack your personal bags only and head to the border.
I doubt you are though you have a foreign vibe.
I think you read my comment backward. I was saying the same thing you are wanting to say, only using specific legal and historical references.
"Alberta" is not the name of a place, but the name of a set of government institutions that the Dominion of Canada government in Ottawa created in 1905. I was saying that the land wouldn't leave with the individual settlers who can leave any time they want.
Take a look at https://atlas.gc.ca/ette/en/
Ignore the notes in that page which are Canadian government propaganda -- the Dominion government did not purchase land from the Hudsons Bay Company as Hudson's Bay didn't have any land claims (only what can be termed a trade agreement), and the numbered treaties prove that the Dominion government knew that.
Prior to 1905, those regions were using names as districts of the North West Territories.
If you look at the names that the Dominion of Canada used in 1901 you will see exactly what I was referring to.
The suggestion that we rescind Alberta Act 1905 does not mean that the land leaves with separatists: quite the opposite.
https://r.flora.ca/p/if-canada-is-severable
Note: The Dominion of Canada was rebranded as only "Canada" in 1982. That is why the longer (and more correct) name is used to discuss these activities which happened prior to 1982.
Russell, thank you for restating a few points.
You're chatting with one of likely only a few here who have done extensive work (decades) on Aboriginal legal cases, involving Canadian history, including Constitutional questions. I'm not an expert by any means, however, I've done a lot of research at archives over my lifetime.
Regarding the Dominion government purchasing lands. Yes they did. That was the Rupert's Land sale in 1869/1870. The largest real estate transaction in Canada's history.
1670 King Charles II granted Rupert's Land by British Royal Charter to HBC. Rupert's Land was named after a cousin of Charles II, the first appointed Governor of HBC.
Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory is 8 Million square km, including most of the prairies, parts of Northern Quebec, Northern Ontario, and Nunavut.
Under some pressure by Great Britain, HBC agrees to sell Rupert's Land to the Government of Canada, by two Memoranda, dated March 22, and 29th, 1869 for $1.5M.
Deed of Surrender (ref # CO42/694). Transfer effective date: July 15, 1870.
1. The Hudson's Bay Company to surrender to Her Majesty all the rights of Government, property, &c., in Rupert's Land which are specified in 31 &32 Vict., cap. 105, sec. 4; and also all similar rights in any other part of British North America, not comprised in Rupert's Land, Canada or British Columbia.
2. Canada is to pay to the Company 300,000 pounds., when Rupert's Land is transferred to the Dominion of Canada.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/constitution/lawreg-loireg/p1t33.html
In 1870 the Dominion of Canada admitted Rupert's Land and the NWT into Canada. The combined territory became known as the North-West Territories.
Alberta was carved out of the North-West Territories in 1905.
Agreed, it would NOT leave with separatists as it was created AFTER the treaties, Treaty 6, (1876) Treaty 7, (1877) and Treaty 8 (1899). Incidentally, the last First Nation to sign Treaty 8 was in 2000 (McLeod Lake Indian Band).
My point is that as a country we need to remove exit ramps for provinces to leave the country. There should not be a means to break up a country, apart from wide scale Civil War, of which we are not in that situation.
There is no mechanism in other parliamentary systems like Canada or the USA under their Republic, though they are at greater risk of outright Civil War today than ever in my lifetime.
I consider Quebec a unique situation because of how it came into Confederation, and they are still governed by Napoleonic law, not British Common law as all of the rest of Canada is. Dealing with Quebec is also an issue but I will leave it to Quebec legal scholars to frame solutions to this.
As far as current legal questions for Alberta separation - this would set off at least 50 years of legal battles in my estimation should a Referendum succeed, which I don't believe it would. Firstly, the numbers are not there. But, for sake of argument say there was sufficient numbers, this would set off a legal battle for many decades.
It would need to be presented to the Federal government who would weigh in on the question itself, to ensure it met the test, and a sufficient majority would need to be proven. This is outlined in the Clarity Act.
If any doubt was to be had, the federal government can shut that down.
We already know the First Nations don't want to separate period. Alberta is fully consisting of treaty lands, and treaties 6, and 8 overlap into BC, Manitoba, and the NWT. Part of treaty 10, mainly in Manitoba also is in Alberta.
Therefore, First Nations immediately would fire off many lawsuits, which would take decades to work through the courts given the newness of this subject, and complexity.
Alberta citizens would file lawsuits against the Alberta government and others.
Canadian citizens would file lawsuits against the Alberta government and others.
After these and many other legal hurdles, if it proceeded the Constitution would be opened up as all provinces have to agree. Not going to happen.
Furthermore, during the Constitutional Conferences held across the country between 1979-1982, with First Nations, the Federal government agreed not to change the Constitution until there was consensus between First Nations bands. Part of those Constitutional conferences involved discussions with indigenous people regarding changes to the 1951 Indian Act, and addressing in particular band membership and treaty rights of women. Namely, if an indigenous woman married a white man, she and her children lost treaty benefits/rights. Conversely, if an indigenous man married a white woman she gained membership and treaty entitlements. Clearly this was discriminatory. Discussions were held regarding those beliefs by group, and the government came up with a band aid which did not fix this issue, resulting in the 1985 Indian Act amendments, and 1988 amendments. This is where the 2nd generation cut-off (or double mother clauses) came into being. These rights were enshrined in Sec. 35 of the Constitution, particularly sec 35(4) is the indigenous equivalent to section 15 of the Charter, and was meant to redress the lack of equal rights for both men and women.
Because indigenous groups themselves don't agree on many things, including abolishing the Indian Act (some find it an important promise and agreement with the government, some do not) and some groups believe in indigenous women losing their standing if they marry a white man, which is contrary to sec. 35(4) it is unlikely that agreement across the many groups could be achieved on some of these issues, never mind the issues of rewriting the Constitution for Alberta separatists. It won't happen.
There is quite a bit there that is the official Canadian colonial version of history I strongly disagree with, mixed in with more neutral statements.
I disagree with the Canadian narrative about what was actually granted to HBC. What they had was an exclusive patent grant -- a monopoly on Europeans doing business in the region -- something similar to a trade agreement. The false claim that this agreement related to land is at best the greatest land theft in history, although since you can’t buy something from someone that doesn’t own something, the fact is Canada has never “owned” that land in a (foreign Western European) Westphalian enclosure exclusive way.
Each province has a fairly unique story, so while there are some that want to fixate on Quebec and claim the rest of Canada is the same, that is not at all true. I included specific mention of Quebec in https://r.flora.ca/p/if-canada-is-severable as there is far more literature explaining how what the Quebec sovereignty movement wants is impossible.
(Although I believe a "Yes" vote would generate a constitutional opening for Ungava to separate from Quebec, as those territorial expansions should never have happened).
The belief that Quebec is a "more special" situation seems to come from a conflation of the contemporary use of the word Quebec with earlier uses of the same name by a different European Empire that predate the Seven Years War.
There are also critically different population density differences, given 70% of Canada's population is south of the 49th parallel while 80% of the land that Canada claims title to is north of the 49th parallel.
Unlike domestic (meaning, Indigenous) nations, France lost a war and ceded all of its (bogus, Doctrine of Discovery, blah) land claims to the mainland of this continent. While P.E. Trudeau loved to claim that First Nations were conquered peoples but French settlers were not, the opposite is true.
(Note: I have some ancestry that goes back to New France, so I'm not pointing to some "other". I speak English, but I'm not a loyalist to that European Empire either. I'm a settler of Scottish, Irish and French descent, who was born on this land, and who is not loyal to the *systems* of Canada)
If we start in 1763, after the Seven Years War which is the only thing that makes sense if you want to believe that the contemporary distinction between what is currently called Ontario and Quebec makes any sense, we are talking about British Colonies. It is allowed different legal structures only as a matter of Provincial law within the co-sovereign nature of the Canadian Constitution. When it comes to land claims, and the massive territorial extensions that it and "Ontario" were granted after the first British North America Act in 1867, they are the same.
And I believe those territorial extensions should be rescinded.
I'm curious if you ever watched these documentaries. Something extremely different happened in those conferences than the official colonial (meaning, propaganda) version, and it is even visible in NFB documentaries.
https://www.nfb.ca/film/dancing_around_the_table_1/
https://www.nfb.ca/film/dancing_around_the_table_part_two/
Why should all the nationalities in this region all be expected to agree? The region that some call “Canada” is about the size of the entire continent of Europe, and has more relationally sovereign nationalities than there are Westphalian nations in Europe. I notice that at this very moment that Europe is still at war with itself, as it has been for pretty much my entire life (one way or another).
The fact that “Canada” wants to treat these nationalities as individuals or “interest groups” has made fixing Canada’s mistakes impossible, something I consider to be deliberate on the part of those foreign institutions.
We'll have to leave the conversation here. You do have your mind made up on some things. That's fine. Having spent decades in archives, looking at the actual documents, including documents from indigenous peoples to the government I write the facts as they were, and are. If you want to take a position that the documents were false or non-representative then that is of course your prerogative. Largely these have been settled in various legal cases already, including Rupert's land.
I can't comment on conspiracy theories and am not prepared to go down those rabbit holes. I'm interested in what Canada can achieve, and working with people to move forward, not re-litigate all aspects of our history. Cheers.
Think so, too.
I updated my comment to hopefully avoid the misinterpretation.
Excellent summation. And much needed warning. It CAN happen here. Helping folks get their heads out of their asses is good, much needed work. Especially in Alberta. THANKS!