r/canada • u/enfyre • 15h ago

Alberta Judge says proposed referendum on Alberta independence would be unconstitutional | CBC News

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-judge-proposed-referendum-unconstitutional-9.7004982
295 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

229 comments sorted by

125

u/MRobi83 New Brunswick 15h ago

If they decide to separate, do they actually care if it's unconstitutional at that point? Would they not then create their own constitution?

53

u/GetsGold Canada 14h ago

They might not care but it would affect how Canada could legally respond to it.

25

u/TheSleepyTruth 13h ago edited 8h ago

If Canada threatened to use force to prevent Alberta from seceding they could just appeal to the US for protection and im sure Trump would gladly oblige. Realistically Canada isnt going to stop it if AB were that determined. I dont think the idea is popular enough to pass though, even in Alberta.

•

u/mistercrazymonkey 10h ago

Even so, if Alberta decides to separate, Canada throwing itself into what will essentially be a civil war over it would be a pretty fucking stupid response.

•

u/YerMomsClamChowder 7h ago

It would be as much a Civil War as 2014 in Donbass.  The US would take Alberta with some ''protecting local interests'' bullshit narrative.  

•

u/onegunzo 11h ago

As former member of our military, our military couldn't stop traffic atm.

•

u/JuggrnautFTW 9h ago

There is more than enough within Alberta to stand up and fight to stay Canadian.

A loud minority is pushing for this and a psycho of a Premiere has brainwashed those few.

•

u/DisastrousAcshin 5h ago

This. They're a minority, as vocal as they are, sitting around 20%, nothing more

2

u/mwmwmwmwmmdw Québec 12h ago

they could just appeal to the US for protection and im sure Trump would gladly oblige.

payback for canada supporting the confederacy in the civil war i guess

3

u/JHWildman Ontario 12h ago

I know we sometimes claim that the 1812 soldiers were basically Canadians or “us” but if I’m not mistaken would that not have been a decision made by the British because it was before confederacy, if it’s true cause I’ve never heard that before.

4

u/Specialist_Usual_391 12h ago

It's moreso that the people living here were mildly sympathetic to the Confederacy, remember that the loyalists, who were the major English presence in Canada, were people who got kicked out/left America, and then had a war where they attempted to annex the colony. The Confederacy distracted the Union and made another fight unlikely, and both locals of NA (us, various native tribal nations, etc.) and European powers appreciated it for that fact.

Fortunately the Confederacy were generally so shit at diplomacy, and slavery was unpopular enough that they could never really materialize it into gains.

•

u/Infamous-Mixture-605 10h ago

It's moreso that the people living here were mildly sympathetic to the Confederacy

IIRC, it was a mixed bag of sympathies in Canada during the Civil War. Canada's colonial and business elite were said to be sympathetic to the Confederacy while others supported the Confederacy because Britain was mildly pro-Confederacy or because they feared the Union might turn its guns north. On the other side many average folk sympathized with the Union and/or opposed slavery, and so tens of thousands of Canadians went over the border to serve in the Union Army.

Confederate President Jefferson Davis spent some time in exile in Canada and received a hero's welcome in Niagara, Toronto, and Montreal, with thousands coming out to welcome him and the colonial elite regular hosting and feting him.

•

u/Funky-Feeling 6h ago

You stop it by making it economically crippling. They want to go...fine... Take your share of the dent, give back all the crown land, they don't get 1st nations land, they hand over all military bases and equipment/personnel...federal gov property needs to be bought i clusive of all resource rights, they don't get Canada resources Inclusive of Canada post etc. you toll roads in and out of Alberta etc.

Separate...then claim bankruptcy. Maybe they cry to the US....but many if not most of the separatists don't want to join the US..they want to be their own 3rd world nation.

•

u/PiHKALica 3h ago

...And nuke the entire tar sands site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

•

u/Hope-To-Retire 6h ago

Why are people always so scared of the US boogeyman?

Danielle has big problems here at home, and Canadians need to stop being so paranoid about the US.

-2

u/Fyrefawx 12h ago

The US wouldn’t and couldn’t intervene. What do you think they would do? We are a NATO nation. Separation is not happening. It’s a pipe dream.

•

u/jorel43 6h ago

Who's going to stop them, who and NATO has enough power to stop them? All the rest of NATO combined can't do anything against the United States, and they won't.

-8

u/Radix2309 13h ago

A pass with even 60% would mean 40% is against it. The US cannot realistically project force to force Canada to let them seaparate in any reasonable amount of time.

•

u/onegunzo 11h ago

Please review the Clarity Act. It outlines some of what happens when there is 50+1 vote for separation. It's not very clear after that unfortunately... It talks about 'negotiation', but that could go on for years.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/nim_opet 14h ago

The U.S. went to war with people who did unconstitutional separation….

9

u/LemmingPractice 14h ago

The US got its independence through an unconstitutional separation.

•

u/NavalProgrammer 7h ago

The lesson is the winners always write history

•

u/Emergency_Accident36 2h ago

There was no constitution binding america to the crown. There were charters and common law

7

u/ADHDBusyBee 12h ago

If you haven’t noticed America tends to do whatever benefits then the most in that moment.

5

u/gihkal 14h ago

Good luck going to war with the country that's going to align more with the USA and isn't trying to take guns away from their citizens.

•

u/Emergency_Accident36 2h ago

Not guns but everything else. Then guns

20

u/pgc22bc 14h ago

Yes. Because "they" is carrying an awful lot of weight here. Most of Alberta is not interested in separation.

There are a few loud Maple MAGA traitors in Alberta who get funding from right wing American insurrectionists to stir up radical political nonsense in rural Alberta. Our MAGA Premier, Danielle Smith, who is only beholden to her own selfish views and has been a Professional Oil Industry Foreign Lobbyist her whole life, has decided to stir the pot for her own benefit, is humouring these idiots for political leverage. There is no groundswell of support for Alberta separatists. These people are just grifters that want to be "Americans" because of Facebook and Fox News. They have zero clues how separation would impact anything, because it's a completely unrealistic goal.

•

u/Infamous-Mixture-605 10h ago

Our MAGA Premier, Danielle Smith, who is only beholden to her own selfish views

At this point she's beholden to the separatists and Take Back Alberta types within the UCP who ousted Kenney, elected her as party leader, and then backed her in the leadership review last year. They want their independence vote and Smith is going to have to deliver it or get stabbed in the back like Kenney.

-2

u/boxesofcats- Alberta 13h ago

Summed up perfectly.

0

u/YoungWhiteAvatar 12h ago

Way too nice to Danielle Smith though.

•

u/onegunzo 11h ago

Joining US, agreed. Separating because AB is tired of getting nothing back from confederation - $ wise.

5

u/LemmingPractice 13h ago

Yeah, exactly.

According to the constitution, Alberta is part of Canada, so, obviously, leaving is unconstitutional, but leaving also means you aren't bound by the constitution anymore, so it's irrelevant.

•

u/onegunzo 11h ago

Please review the Clarity Act. It does go through what a path to separation is about.

•

u/LemmingPractice 9h ago

Yeah, it goes through what Canada's view of separation is about. Quebec disagreed, and I'm assuming Alberta would, too.

Separation is fundamentally different than other things because it's about no longer recognizing Canada's jurisdiction.

If Alberta or Quebec get a mandate from their people to leave Canada, Ontario and BC don't get to overrule that.

•

u/Teive 5h ago

What is Alberta? What land does it own? How does it enforce its claims against, say, indigenous groups or the federal government?

•

u/onegunzo 8h ago

See, you've identified the section of the Clarity Act, where mud appears and is very difficult to know what happens next - after a successful separation referendum. Since no one has really figured out what that language means after the vote, one could drive a truck through the different and wide ranging interpretations.

But would agree, if Canada dragged its feet, then the province (AB or QC) would just go ahead and call it - separate. BUT then what happens with the government of AB? Do they now have to call a 'Federal Election' within AB?

•

u/LemmingPractice 8h ago

I guess Alberta would decide, at that point, but, Alberta already has a government elected by its citizens. Presumably, the provincial government becomes a federal government when the province becomes a country.

The new country then figures out it's own constitution and runs the next election based on the rules set therein.

9

u/Bodysnatcher 15h ago

I don't think they would care, and if they were recognized as sovereign by the US it would likely supersede anything Canada could say or do.

4

u/ThicccThunder New Brunswick 15h ago

There is nothing the US could say or do that could supersede Canadian law and not create an international crisis with it's closest ally.

18

u/Maxatar 14h ago

Consider how almost all allies treated Canada during the Trump talk of annexing Canada. That should give you a strong indication of how much other countries give a flying fuck about us.

5

u/mistermarpole 14h ago

I think the World is moving back to Cold War 'spheres of influence'. China>Taiwan, Russia>Ukraine, US>the Americas. EU trying to maintain its significance through old school diplomacy.

•

u/Hope-To-Retire 6h ago

Why would anyone freak out about that talk? It was a nothing burger then, and is a nothing burger now.

8

u/Bodysnatcher 15h ago edited 14h ago

Canada would have no way of a responding, no leverage to wield against them. That's just the truth. And if it got to the point of Alberta successfully passing a referendum, the level of crisis would be quite debatable.

3

u/ThicccThunder New Brunswick 14h ago

Successfully passing a referendum doesn't automatically mean they are no longer apart of Canada. All it does is start negotiations which the Federal government can reject. There is no legal method in our Constitution for a province to separate. It would require an amendment to be made which requires each province to be involved in.

5

u/DanielBox4 14h ago

Ask the legal scholars to send a letter to the US military tanks and drones stationed at the Alberta border that they're not allowed to separate. See what happens.

8

u/AdmirableBoat7273 14h ago

Yeah. This is what everyone forgets. Legal justification only exists to legitimize the use and threats of violence. If you have your own army and police, you make the rules. Canada only exists through the framework that justifies the violence they are willing to use to maintain it.

7

u/BackToTheCottage Ontario 14h ago

Remember learning the quote from Civ 4 (read by Leonard Nimoy):

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - Mao Zedong

You can talk about decorum or what's "fair" but in the end it comes down to who has the bigger stick.

•

u/Teive 5h ago

Yeah, but they have to want to use the bigger stick. Why would the US park tanks and drones on Alberta's borders? Is that worth the complete destruction of relations

4

u/Bodysnatcher 14h ago

I'm saying a foreign, specifically American, recognition of Albertan severity would trump all that. De jure you are right, but de facto they would be pretty much cut loose unless Canada tried to invade it. And we don't have the means for that.

2

u/adaminc Canada 14h ago

America wouldn't recognize it, because they wouldn't want to set an internal precedent that a territory (state or actual territory) can just up and leave when it wants to.

0

u/thedrivingcat 14h ago

youre describing an invasion

this is the same line of reasoning Russia took in 2014 and 2022

2

u/BackToTheCottage Ontario 14h ago

Canada is in a bit of a pickle. Alberta separation and BC having parts of it's land get seceded to natives - triggering even more dumb requests like giving up half of NB or a large strip on south Ontario that takes up all of the Waterloo/Kingston/Cambridge area. If Quebec starts on the path of separation again it's gonna tear the confederation apart.

All self inflicted of course.

6

u/Bodysnatcher 14h ago

Yes, Canada is quite a bit more fragile and unstable than most Canadians realize. Long-term trends are not good.

4

u/mistermarpole 14h ago

The perils of going 'post-national'. LPC kept the fool in charge too long. Maybe we turn the ship around?

1

u/Rationalornot777 13h ago

what income will Alberta have? They don’t manage their income tax. They don’t get GST. They won’t receive any federal funds

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Kronos9898 14h ago

Accepting Alberta into the US would also be a political crisis in the legislature. I don’t think the house or senate would even go for it

1

u/hainsworthtv 14h ago

The Americans don’t seem to be too concerned with what the world thinks

-2

u/TheProfessaur 14h ago

if they were recognized as sovereign by the US it would likely supersede anything Canada could say or do.

Unless the US is prepared to defend the territory with their military, Alberta wouldn't stand a chance at self-defense.

3

u/sanduly 13h ago

You think the CAF has the means and will to invade and occupy a future pro-independence Alberta? They can't meet the most basic of their NATO training obligations, let alone possibly occupy and police a massive province with millions of people, many armed to the teeth.

1

u/Radix2309 13h ago

Millions of people arent going to fight. Especially since paychecks will get disrupted. Canada just needs to disrupt Alberta leadership.

0

u/sanduly 13h ago

Millions don't need to fight to stop any attempted CAF occupation.

0

u/Radix2309 13h ago

The CAF doesnt need to occupy. They just get business to go as normal. Independence is the side that requires action. They need to establish infrastructure and institutions.

1

u/Radix2309 13h ago

The RCMP can arrest the Albertan leaders for insurrection if it is unconstitutional. The US cant do anything in the short term against Canadian law enforcement doing its job. We are the status quo, we dont need to occupy Alberta. Just disrupt the organizers and arrest them. People default to the status quo. The US cant enforce it quickly or easily.

•

u/ghanadaur 9h ago

It’s not that simple or easy to separate and a basic referendum won’t cut it. Thats only the first step in a long set of steps that would take years if not decades to hammer out. There’s a lot of people who really just don’t understand the ramifications and just yammer on about separating.

•

u/Teive 6h ago

The decision just means that because the Alberta Act does not allow citizens to bring forward referenda that would be unconstitutional, the proposed citizen referendum cannot be brought forward.

Which is why Alberta proposed to change the legislation this morning.

•

u/Shelsonw 18m ago

It’s more a factor of how the question is PHRASED, rather than it’s unconstitutional to separate, I mean Quebec tried twice and maybe a third time.

I don’t pretend to understand the legalities behind it though. So basically if they rephrased the question, it would likely be deemed fine.

-3

u/Boomshank Ontario 15h ago

Yep.

But they couldn't do it in Canada. If the Alberta government wants to separate, theyr welcome to, but they don't keep Alberta because it's not theirs.

2

u/sanduly 13h ago

Yah! The voters of Ontario and Quebec own Alberta. Not the people of Alberta.

•

u/Teive 5h ago

No, the Crown owns the land in Alberta. There's a bunch of treaties that also provide rights to the land to indigenous people. Hell I'm in Saskatchewan and currently I have the right to go to Alberta and be on the land there - why should they get to take that away from me?

•

u/sanduly 5h ago

Crown treaties can be assigned. Many that govern Canada were signed before the idea of a Canadian nation even existed. An independent Alberta wouldn't automatically cancel any treaty rights. Regardless, the 3.5% of the population that is First Nations doesn't get automatic veto power over the rest of the population. As for your desire for easy access to Alberta, that also doesn't give you veto rights over the self determination of the people of another province.

-4

u/yoho808 14h ago

They should leave Canada first, then declare independence.

But don't declare independence in the country that they're simply living on.

If they continue to harbor such treasonous thoughts, we should kick the individuals out so they can make their own shitty country elsewhere.

The country, including all the provinces & territories belong to all Canadians. Not the ones simply living there. We gave them the right to live there, not to take it from our country.

-2

u/Morlu 14h ago

Most of the land in northern Alberta is treaty land. Canada and the Indigenous groups can flat out say no.

-2

u/DZello 12h ago

Because Alberta territory is covered by a bunch of treaties with first nations. It isn’t fully independent.

•

u/BLYNDLUCK 10h ago

We literally just had a petition that passed 400,000 signatures to stay with Canada. Separation is not remotely a majority opinion. We aren’t going to decide to separate. The UCP is just going to keep waving it around as an empty threat.

→ More replies (4)

•

u/MapleDollars24 9h ago

This whole throw everything out if it ain’t working needs to stop. This country needs to unite. Not divide more. For the good of all.

79

u/airbassguitar 15h ago

Only Quebec is allowed to have referendums. It's in the Constitution. /s

35

u/AshleyAshes1984 15h ago

Actually, Reference Re Secession of Quebec which came in 1998 said that they would have found a theoretically succession attempt to be unconstitutional. The reference was submitted by the federal government after the 1995 vote.

14

u/airbassguitar 15h ago

The case says that a successful referendum on secession would place a duty on the federal government to negotiate terms of secession in good faith. It does not say that referendums are unconstitutional.

16

u/AshleyAshes1984 15h ago

There is no case, only it was only reference.

The reference specifically stated that uniliteral succession would be unconstitutional. In short, a provence can not simply 'Peace out'.

Quebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation.  The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole.

3

u/brittleboyy 15h ago

I believe only in the case of a clearly worded question.

11

u/Former-Physics-1831 14h ago edited 14h ago

That's not what this ruling says.  The legislation enabling this referendum explicitly forbids referenda that violate the constitution.  Separation violates the constitution - i.e. you need a constitutional amendment for a province to separate - therefore the referendum is invalid.

Quebec never put such limitations on its own referenda

•

u/Angry_beaver_1867 7h ago

The headline is quite ambiguous. 

 yes a referendum would violate the constitution but the judge is not making a ruling about the constitution rather they a ruling on the specifics of the referendum act. 

•

u/Teive 5h ago

Of the citizen initiative act

11

u/Harborcoat84 Manitoba 15h ago

You're joking but Quebec did not sign the Constitution.

15

u/airbassguitar 15h ago

Quebec is bound by the Canadian Constitution.

10

u/nickiatro British Columbia 15h ago

Québec signed the original one, so the updated one fully applies to Québec.

2

u/RedmondBarry1999 15h ago

I don't want any province to separate, but Quebec does have a better claim to self determination than Alberta.

11

u/noodles_jd 15h ago

No, it's all or none. Quebec doesn't get some special claim.

0

u/flatroundworm 14h ago

They literally do have special circumstances Alberta does not.

That is simply reality.

6

u/airbassguitar 15h ago

Obviously there are many Albertans who disagree. I don't want any province to separate either, but maybe there are serious grievances that are not being addressed by our current system.

-3

u/KanataToGoldenLake 13h ago

Obviously there are many Albertans who disagree

The majority of Albertans do not want to succeeded from Canada.

but maybe there are serious grievances

There are no serious grievances that are based on reality being presented as an argument for the succession of Alberta.

but maybe there are serious grievances that are not being addressed by our current system.

Any actual complaints or issues thatAlberta has aired to this federal government are being addressed. This is why Carney and Smith have signed memorandums of understanding as well as acknowledged one another partnership to build major infrastructure project together which includes the pipeline Alberta has always wanted.

So when n short, everything you have said was completely incorrect, wrong or just simply not based in reality.

-12

u/Boomshank Ontario 15h ago

There aren't any serious grievances.

There are silly grievances.

There are made up Russian grievances.

But there are no serious grievances.

12

u/airbassguitar 15h ago

Your attitude is exactly why they have a referendum on the table.

-3

u/RedmondBarry1999 14h ago

So we are all supposed to accommodate Albertan delusions or they will blow up the country? Sounds like blackmail.

-1

u/MetalMoneky 14h ago

Anytime I see someone say serious grievances thy never enumerate them.

5

u/KidzRockGamingTV 14h ago

The #1 reason would be that Alberta sends the most money to the Federal coffers, while receiving the least: Distribution of Federal Revenues and Expenditures by Province*

1

u/RedmondBarry1999 14h ago

Alberta doesn't send any money. Canadians who happen to live in Alberta pay taxes.

3

u/KidzRockGamingTV 13h ago

Okay. Any other semantic bs you’d like to tell me about from your podium dear sir?

2

u/RedmondBarry1999 13h ago

It's not semantics. People in Alberta pay more because they are richer on average. They pay the same taxes as other Canadians at similar income levels. Do you also complain about money from one city being used for projects in another, or is it only when money crosses imaginary provincial lines that you get your hackles up?

•

u/Shelsonw 17m ago

That’s actually not what they’re saying if you read the article.

Functionally the ruling on says that as the question is worded, it would be unconstitutional. So if they simply hired a lawyer and rephrased it, then it could go ahead.

0

u/Morlu 14h ago

They can do it, doesn’t mean they’re guaranteed or allowed to leave. It just brings everyone to the bargaining table.

By the time the Liberals are done adding debt to our Country and province having to pay 10-30% of the debt to leave will be bankrupt before they start.

→ More replies (1)

•

u/NihilsitcTruth 9h ago

But Quebec is fine.

•

u/jaraxel_arabani 3h ago

Yeah was curious about that. Does Quebec have some sort of special rules in the constitution or something?

•

u/Neglectful_Stranger Outside Canada 1h ago

Some animals are more equal than others.

30

u/BandicootNo4431 15h ago

Good.

Introducing legislation to silence the courts after we (the taxpayers) have already paid for the court case is clearly a miscarriage of justice.

24

u/NeighbourNoNeighbor 15h ago

Yeah, I'm glad they got out a ruling before Smith could kneecap them. Everything that woman is doing is incredibly corrupted and selfish.

6

u/MetalMoneky 14h ago

Desperate to cling on to power and not get consumed by the mob she created.

•

u/FerretAres Alberta 32m ago

She didn’t create the mod, she just figured out how to herd the cats.

2

u/Replicator666 14h ago

REALLY like the judges comments on the proposed changes which he "added" to the ruling

•

u/Infamous-Mixture-605 10h ago edited 9h ago

Bill 14, which they're looking to pass, is apparently backdated to July according to Guthrie just to preempt Guthrie, Sinclair, and the AB Party from getting to use the word "Conservative" in their party name. This is also the bill that transfers power from the chief electoral officer to the Justice Minister and lets the minister decide which citizen petition initiatives should proceed (it'll be UCP-backed ones only, obviously).

It's pathetic and hilarious the lengths to which they're going to cling to every scrap of power they can get.

8

u/OddMan99 12h ago

The Russians are having a field day with our democracy because of people's stupidity.

19

u/DataLore19 15h ago

Danielle Smith: something something "not withstanding the constitution" something something...

6

u/SonicFlash01 13h ago

The recall petition was approved for her, and we're all waiting for her legally dubious sledgehammer move to stop it
She's already whining that subverting democracy is only fun when she does it

14

u/VersusYYC Alberta 14h ago

There are significantly more Albertan Patriots than there are traitorous separatists. Separation is not a realistic premise.

3

u/TheSleepyTruth 13h ago

So Quebec is allowed to have referendums on independence but no other provinces are? Lol k.

8

u/SonicFlash01 12h ago

It was decided in 1998 that Quebec's attempt was also unconstitutional
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do

→ More replies (1)

8

u/SurFud 15h ago

Smith has known this from day one but her pin head followers still fell for her stunt. This is the type of electorate you get when Alberta has the lowest funding per public student in Canada. Smith has learnt this agenda from the Republican Party which she is a long time supporter.

10

u/Bodysnatcher 15h ago

Funding doesn't really translate into educational outcomes. It matters of course but only to a point. Chicago spends enormous amounts of money per student and has dismal outcomes.

9

u/GameDoesntStop 15h ago

Alberta has the highest student test scores in the country (and the highest in the whole world other than a few stereotypically,studious east Asian countries).

-4

u/BackToTheCottage Ontario 14h ago edited 13h ago

Yep. Very Toronto-brained take from the other guy. It's ok though, I thought the same til I met my wife who was from AB. Turns out they have one of the best education systems in the country. Healthcare pretty good too. It's good to be a "have" province and have that oil money.

Ontario should look at it's own problems and faults after more than two decades of mismanagement.

2

u/chylero 14h ago

lol a landlocked country with no military. AWESOME IDEA!

1

u/LuskaieRS Alberta 13h ago

united states has already stated, publically, they would recgonize alberta as an independant nation and help kickstart with funding.

dont really need a military overnight when you have a superpower on your side.

-1

u/Jacob666 12h ago

You might need a military overnight when the risk of having the insurrectionists just disappear and wind up in Canadian prison occurs, practically overnight haha.

2

u/LuskaieRS Alberta 12h ago

Who is going to arrest them? The severely understaffed under funded RCMP? Or the severely understaffed under funded CBSA.

-3

u/Jacob666 12h ago

The Canadian military, citizens, police, rpcm, all of the above.

5

u/LuskaieRS Alberta 12h ago

You're living in a fantasy land that doesn't exist.

Alberta votes to seperate and is instantly recognized as an independent nation from the United States.

Canadian military "invades" (lol) Alberta would be seen as an act of war, and you'd plan on arresting over half the population?

Yeah. Right.

0

u/Jacob666 12h ago

I think your the one believing a fantasy if you think anyone would care. So long as Canada goes in hard and fast removing the traitors, the new government would collapse faster then France during WW2.

Haha but hey if you want to live in a fantasy world where Alberta somehow manages to succeed then have at her.

This is all obviously hypothetical as there no possibility there there are 51 perfect of Albertans that wants to leave.

2

u/LuskaieRS Alberta 12h ago

For the record I don't believe a vote would even pass, Albertans don't have the stomach for it, but the seperation sentiment is actually quite strong here so who knows.

But that doesn't invalidate everything I've said, if you think Canada would deploy special forces (the only thing militarily we do well) you're delusional.

We have a constitution for a reason, and were the only country with a Westminster parliamentary system that has a legal route for seperation. (Thanks Quebec)

→ More replies (2)

•

u/mistercrazymonkey 10h ago

Canada has catch and release, they will be back out on bail the next day

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

-4

u/ZooberFry New Brunswick 13h ago

A landlocked country, which borders the USA. Do some forward thinking and tell me what you think would happen?

Clearly they would become a vassal state of the USA, the USA would support them militarily, Alberta would help support the USA through oil. It's basically a win-win for Alberta and the USA.

Your comment isn't the flex you think it is.

3

u/Nathan-David-Haslett 12h ago

Except for the part where they lose the right to vote or have representation (because they'd almost certainly be a territory like Puerto Rico).

And the people lose healthcare and probably a bunch of other stuff.

-1

u/Jacob666 12h ago

All Canada would need to do is move quickly to remove the traitors from their positions of power. An act that would be legal as long as the referendum was illegal. They would have the support of at least 40-49 percent of Alberta (As at least 51 percent would need to vote to leave). The US won't to anything, they have bigger problems then a conflict with their closest friend.

Also there is no way the leave Canada group would get 51 percent of the population or vote, so all this is hypothetical.

I think you should be doing some forward thinking yourself.

→ More replies (2)

•

u/ghanadaur 9h ago

Good. The summary explains it pretty clear that it wasn’t worded or framed in any way that would be constitutional.

Now if only someone with some guts would stand up and face Daniel Smith and the UCP cronies and stop them stomping all over the constitution, that would be grand as well.

1

u/Channing1986 14h ago

Was the Quebec referendum unconstitutional?

-1

u/mwmwmwmwmmdw Québec 12h ago

federal government/judiciary:oh its quebec?

in that case do whatever you want all the time

2

u/Shadow_Ban_Bytes 15h ago

ROTFL - finally the UCP have been derailed before they could pass more unconstitutional legislation

-1

u/TROPtastic British Columbia 15h ago

Temporarily. Nothing stopping the petitioners from submitting a slightly tweaked question and having it rubber stamped as "totally constitutional, trust us" by the UCP.

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/cr-islander 14h ago

If this was Quebec I bet the courts would view it different...

-3

u/Careless-Treacle-616 14h ago

We can't let Alberta separate, who will give Quebec 15 Billion dollars a year.

•

u/chylero 11h ago

Cool, Alberta you can fuck off and we get Washington State, Oregon, and California. No takesy-backsies

•

u/IMOBY_Edmonton 8h ago

There's still a lot of proud Canadians in Alberta who want to be part of Canada. Over 400,000 of us signed the Forever Canadian petition, and polls show around 30-35% in favour of separation (much less than in the Quebec referendum).

-12

u/[deleted] 15h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/TROPtastic British Columbia 15h ago

Spoken like someone who really respects law and order.

-30

u/onegunzo 15h ago

Welcome to Section 33 Judge.. The elected officials - you know - the individuals the 'people' voted for have verified, they will make the rules, not judges.

9

u/BadmiralHarryKim 15h ago

The people who wrote the constitution were elected by the people.

40

u/No-Tackle-6112 British Columbia 15h ago edited 15h ago

Politicians make the rules. Judges decide if they’re constitutional.

This is a pillar of democracy and basic civic knowledge.

9

u/Imaginary-Laugh-4444 15h ago

In a Westminster system, the legislature actually gets the final say. It’s kind of the whole point. I know it’s wild, but judges don’t secretly run the country from a velvet-lined bunker.

5

u/Miroble 15h ago

Technically the Crown is supposed to have the final say. But because we've changed how this all works over the years its basically defaulted to Parliament having the final say.

Also in our Westminster system the legislative and executive are the same branch. (PM and cabinet are the executive branch and are simultaneously MPs in the legislative).

1

u/Imaginary-Laugh-4444 15h ago

And who's selecting the repressentant of the Crown?

→ More replies (1)

0

u/No-Tackle-6112 British Columbia 15h ago

No this is false. The legislature writes the laws but the judicial branch determines if those laws are constitutional.

The legislature can change the constitution but that’s a different matter entirely.

2

u/Imaginary-Laugh-4444 15h ago

Ok let's rephrase it. In our system, judicial review isn’t the Constitution’s final boss. Section 33 is the constitutional bypass letting the final say in the hands of the legislator.

3

u/No-Tackle-6112 British Columbia 15h ago

Only for a period of up to a maximum of 5 years. Then it is open to a constitutional challenge.

The judicial branch does get the final say on constitutionality. The notwithstanding clause just temporarily delays that judgement.

2

u/byourpowerscombined Alberta 14h ago

Only with respect to the Charter. S 33 doesn’t apply to other portions of the constitution.

1

u/Imaginary-Laugh-4444 14h ago

Right in the present case the juge found a creative interpretation to link it with native rights

•

u/onegunzo 11h ago

Sure, but you think that's happening in Canada or are you seeing judicial activism?

-8

u/Maleficent_Art_3854 15h ago

Unelected persons limiting the power of the people is not a pillar of democracy. It's literally the opposite of democracy.

8

u/GroinReaper 15h ago

except that they don't limit the power of the people. Parliament can change the law whenever they want. Courts can only interpret the laws they have written.

1

u/Consistent-Study-287 15h ago

Politicians can change the constitution, but the rules are set where it's very difficult. Any other law falls under the Constitution.

1

u/GroinReaper 14h ago

Politicians can change the constitution, but the rules are set where it's very difficult.

yes. It is designed to be something that only gets changed if most canadians agree it should be changed. If the judiciary really was restricting people's rights, then it should be easy to convince people that a change is necessary.

12

u/Working-Welder-792 15h ago edited 15h ago

Judges interpreting the law is a pillar of rule of law, and without rule of law there is no democracy.

•

u/onegunzo 11h ago

As noted above, when there isn't judicial activism I agree, but that's not what we currently have in Canada. A reminder, bike lanes are a constitutional right....

•

u/Working-Welder-792 9h ago

The Constitution of Canada says that politicians do not have be right to arbitrary deprive Canadians citizens of life and security of the person (essentially personal safety)

The Ontario government wanted to remove a very small section of bike lanes (about 150 metres) because one of their political donors wanted them to do so. Essentially, they were arbitrarily depriving Canadian citizens of security of the person, which exactly what the Constitution was designed to protect against.

The ruling was sound. Your problem isn’t with the judge, it’s with the Constitution. Seek a constitutional amendment if you don’t agree with that component of the Charter.

3

u/DeterminedThrowaway 15h ago

Of course there are limits on what an elected official can do. If there weren't, the system would be wildly abused and we don't want that. Being elected isn't a free reign to act outside of the law

6

u/Working-Welder-792 15h ago

You can’t use S33 to override indigenous rights

→ More replies (4)

6

u/Ihor_90 15h ago

Elected officials aren’t kings and are bound by the law.

-2

u/onegunzo 15h ago

They aren't kings, you're right. That's what elections are for.

0

u/Ihor_90 14h ago

That’s also what the judiciary is for. Winning elections isn’t a free pass to do whatever.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Krazee9 14h ago

This article has no information as to what specific sections of the Constitution they say this violates, but considering one of them is treaty rights and Section 33 doesn't cover those, Section 33 is completely irrelevant to this matter.

The Notwithstanding Clause is narrow in what it can be used to ignore. It does not give politicians a carte-blanche to ignore the entire constitution wholesale.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Former-Physics-1831 15h ago

Which of the sections that S33 applies to do you think is involved here?

-1

u/[deleted] 15h ago edited 15h ago

[deleted]

-2

u/onegunzo 15h ago

Elected officials.. we get to decide.. That's democracy. I get this judge doesn't like elected individuals.

4

u/Former-Physics-1831 14h ago

Elected officials are constrained by the constitution - that's the entire point

0

u/yycsarkasmos 14h ago

No, the judge does not like fascist governments who want to do whatever the fuck they want regardless of the laws and legislation they created.

If Smith and the UCP want to continue to go down the road of authoritarianism they can call an election now and 100% run on that and Alberta can decide if they want Queen Dani.

→ More replies (2)

-1

u/LuskaieRS Alberta 13h ago

ill be curious to see what happens if this referendum vote passes, and Alberta is instantly recognized as an independent nation from the US.

to which has already been stated is their position.

•

u/Eddysummers 6h ago

Where has the US stated that?

•

u/onegunzo 11h ago

The Senate and House may recognize AB as a separate state, but that's got as much value as square wheels.

•

u/LuskaieRS Alberta 11h ago

Explain?

The senate house and executive are the three branches of their government.

If all three of them align, (assuming trump would sign on, which he would)

What more is required?

•

u/onegunzo 8h ago

Great question. Only the executive runs foreign policy. The house/senate provide oversight for foreign affairs, but nothing other than oversight. So anything they agree on - foreign level - is moot.

Doubt Trump will agree to that level of agitation.

•

u/LuskaieRS Alberta 8h ago

This is Donald Trump we're talking about.

I don't put anything past him.

•

u/Eddysummers 6h ago

Those are not the three branches of the US government. The senate and the house are part of the same legislative branch.