OK, but there are some logistical issues here- let's say Alberta votes to secede and this is somehow legally viable. All of the Albertan voters who didn't want to secede- including the native tribes- could then by your rules vote to secede from Alberta and join back to Canada. It'd be a mess. Towns and counties would split themselves in half, and so on.

What would happen if a landlocked town within Alberta wants to rejoin Canada- how would you handle that?

Russia is currently placing Russian citizens in the occupied parts of Ukraine exactly for this reason. If there will ever be a vote whether the Donbas Oblast or the Luhansk Oblast want to rejoin Ukraine, you can bet the vote will be pro Russia.

Cool. I suppose we'll see the U.S. support referenda in the Basque territory in Spain, Northern Ireland, the West Bank, Gaza, and Texas soon. Maybe in Guam and Hawaii, too.

Nice NED propaganda.

Sure, and history deals the cards we're given and so on and so forth. Why don't we have referendums on keeping the US Constitution every year? That would be democratic as hell.

That's fine and all, but leave all by yourself. A territory isn't owned by the people that happen to be there. It's bound up in the systems and institutions they found and accepted, ingrained into a much bigger machinery. Alberta's own referendum already shows this: a court halted the petition because First Nations weren't consulted, because their claims predate any popular vote.

Unless you get everyone with a stake on board, which is hard, and accept it will take a long while to unwind, it's irresponsible. And if you aren't willing to do that work, just pack your bags and leave.

But the meaning of "people want" is very delicately depending on the geographical area and moment in time.

Yes, also the right to self-determination is an unalienable human right.

I find it sort of fascinating because people really do have a fanaticism about this that they don't have for other political artifacts. Nationalism is a powerful force. And people will special-plead themselves silly arguing why one group should be given self-determinism and others shouldn't, including invoking federal laws, untestable predictions about future events, etc. But when it comes to other politics, they revert back to a globalist position.

On the flip side, separatists are often driven by nationalistic interests as well - look at Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries as fantastic examples of this.

Lincoln disagreed. The good man even had the balls to let loose Sherman.

As a non-Albertan, this seems like a great bargaining ploy to get some leverage against the Federal Government, just like Quebec did. Most political parties in Canada seem to ignore and exploit the West most of the time, whereas they treat Quebec (transfer payments) and the maritimes (oil revenues and employment insurance) much more thoughtfully.

A vote should end up showing that to be the case at least.

They know that getting a legitimate majority vote is pretty much impossible. This probably isn't their intention. They want to get any vote on the ballot, then cry about the results being falsified and beg the US to invade. They want to be treated like Crimea.

As an outsider I like this idea of being able to vote yourself out. This is the ultimate test of a democracy, imho, that you can leave it democratically (by vote and not by force).

We've seen some interesting cases of this, in Spain and in the Donbas of the last years.

I think the outcome of people voting against it is a great outcome. You have the freedom. You paid for the vote (its expensive) and "they" did not win. Hurray for unity at the highest level.

> One of the "separatist" leaders is hiding from the law in Texas

Which one is that?

One of the separatist leaders was found guilty of misappropriating more than 1.3 million CAD from his elderly aunt and uncle’s bank accounts:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dennis-modry-misappropriated-...

It's clear it's a pandering to the provincial government base, and has zero legitimacy. This all stems from a boneheaded move to unify the right in Alberta to prevent another NDP leadership term - that term being something that actually did our province some good.

We've unfortunately been putting up with these leaders doing this sort of thing too long and let the rural part of this province dictate far too much.

FWIW, I even bought myself a membership to try and do at least a small part to prevent this a decade ago, but that was impossible. People have truely lost their minds here and it's bizarre to talk to people that were once rational.

I see from other comments that there's some concern over the validity of the signatures. But comparing the number of signatures on competiting petitions doesn't tell us much. I assume signature gathering in Alberta shares some common ideas with places I've lived... If you want something on the ballot you have a minimum number of signatures to gather, maybe another tier that enables a faster process, and you want to collect some number beyond that because some signatures will be found invalid, but after that there's no reason to continue collecting.

> First Nations have successfully argued in court that as consultations with them are required by the Canadian Constitution, no such consultations had even been suggested by separatists.

IMHO as an outside observer, if the current question is 'should we commence the legal process to have a binding referrendum', having consultations now is inappropriate. They would be part of the process to have a binding referrendum and so they must either be done or not after the results of this referrendum.

Apart from the fact that the Alberta population is ~4 million, it is difficult to see how separatists can figure they'd win a referendum to separate.

Isn't the important number not the total population, but the number of people who show up to vote?

What is a consultation? That sounds like a vague ill-defined veto over ever making changes.

I'm very open to tribal sovereignty in deciding what whether to remain in in Canada, but that should apply to tribal territory, not holding the majority of the population of the territory hostage.

They are already separate first nations not joined to Canada or Alberta. I don't understand why Alberta not wanting to participate in Federalism anymore is an issue.

Another case: when Brexit happened, IIRC some people in Scotland were suggesting secession from the UK post-Brexit so they could rejoin the EU.

> Quebec separatists were outraged at the thought of First Nations and pro-Federalist geographical areas turning their new entity into ''Swiss cheese''. It is highly likely that Alberta separatists would face the same challenges and take an equally dim view.

This is complicated by the fact that First Nations themselves are highly stratified. They receive billions in dollars from the federal government with zero oversight so corruption is rampant.

So what happens if a majority of First Nations people want to separate but the chiefs in charge of a particular band don't?

It's like the pipeline issue in British Columbia... Bands and their elected officials voted to allow pipelines, then some "hereditary chiefs" associated with environmentalist groups convinced courts that their opinion carries the same weight as elected chiefs and the court blocked pipeline projects.

In Canada there's layers of un-elected government officials and activist judges who seem more concerned with getting federal funding (aka. kickbacks aka. bribes) than any sort of democratic notions.

Of these, I really only see "indigenous rights/claims" as a particularly difficult issue.

For currency, The Maldives, with a relatively small population and tiny GDP has their own currency. What is the difficulty in currency? Ignoring the fact that AB would probably just use the greenback.

All of these of these issues are surmountable.

Right now, huge Albertan budget surpluses get sent to Ottawa to be spent outside of Alberta (largely as a carrot to inhibit other independence movements), which is what motivates the Albertan independence movement. Any Albertans would hope the US to be more egalitarian.

Is Alberta taxed at a higher rate than other provinces? Nothing in the top few hits on Google indicates this to be the case.

And I'm not sure how the US would be different - all states pay the same federal income tax rates, whether that's individual or business income.

While I appreciate the sentiment, that would be condemning a great many Albertans who want nothing to do with separation to a fate I would rather not see a fellow Canadian faced with.

Along with the local Canadian salary it entails?

I have no doubt Wisconsin would second the motion.

I think most of Canada (and probably America) would be okay with trading all the great lakes touching American states + the US west coast for Alberta.

Beats spending time on Tik Tok and social media!

This is part of Democracy.

Thank you for a factually and legally grounded take on this. Lots of comments seem to think this has zero precedent or applicable legislation and just want to make it up as they go, much like the poorly informed and inarticulate separatists here in Alberta.

If I recall correctly, the Brexit referendum wasn't binding either. When the result ended up the way it did, there was sufficient political capital to push it through without a follow up vote.

Is there actually even a legal process for leaving Canada? I would assume you can't just decide to leave.

EDIT: oh, there is a process. thats the Clarity Act. This seems extremely surprising - I've never heard of this sort of thing before with any other country.

Smith is doing this because now outrageous amounts of American plutocrat money is going to flow into pushing the "leave Canada" position (from ketamine-rot trash like Musk. American plutocrats despise that a functional country not ruled by the super-rich sits so close). Smith has gone to the US to plan with her American partners repeatedly.

And they aren't first pushing becoming a token raped resource of the US, because that is massively unpopular. Instead they're pushing a magical "super Canadians within Canada but also not beholden to those libs and I get to pardon people" middle ground.

This is all so comically transparent and obvious.

Oh and fun fact -- a "Forever Canada" petition gained far more signatures, far quicker (and without people stealing election lists or faking signatures). Smith's UCP stalled and sat on it, but then raced to follow the "democratic will" of the tiny subset of Albertans that are calling for separation.

I understand that Albertan Canadians stick with leaders like UCP because that's their only conservative choice, but this is going to turn out incredibly poorly for you. Even this stupid question is purposefully ambiguous enough that any answer can be construed as "yes, leave".

It is technically possible to separate legally, but there are so many intentional roadblocks that it is effectively impossible to do so.

I don't get it. They're having a referendum on whether or not to have a referendum? Why bother with two steps?

I googled the Clarity Act and it appears to be recently-passed US (not Canadian) legislation about regulating cryptocurrencies or something. What's its relevance here?

I am not Canadian and know nothing about Canadian politics. Someone please enlighten me.

This is the phenomenon originally named "fake news" in the US during the 2016 elections. As in the comments that YouTube exposé you linked, despite what the evidence in the original investigations showed there were lots of accusations that this stuff was part of coordinated influence campaigns from outside countries. Threatened by this, Trump used the phrase against his criticism: labeling that the real fake news and any deeper discussion on it dropped from US politics.

The real issue is that these platforms have commoditized rumor in a way that gets around our cultural taboos about the practice.

Mini brexit? A province seceding from Canada is way bigger than the UK leaving the EU.

> The origins of the data are not yet known

> The addresses of around 2,000 Albertans

> Lorne Gibson, former Election Commissioner at Elections Alberta: “The data is worth probably millions of dollars. It's probably worth at least $3 million.” “It’s the largest data breach in Canada. I haven’t heard of anything that surpasses that scale,” he added.

Not gonna lie, the Commissioner’s remarks and the general tone wouldn’t be out of place in a South Park episode about Canada, hah.

> Ah interesting. I always thought US is rather decentralized with each state with its own government and laws and such

Maybe before being president was a daily ego boost in taking over the news

Some Albertans.

>interesting how this never came up in the Quebec referendums

It did come up. It's referenced in the Supreme Court of Canada case on secession. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/in...

"Consistent with this long tradition of respect for minorities, which is at least as old as Canada itself, the framers of the Constitution Act, 1982 included in s. 35 explicit protection for existing aboriginal and treaty rights, and in s. 25, a non-derogation clause in favour of the rights of aboriginal peoples. The "promise" of s. 35, as it was termed in R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1083, recognized not only the ancient occupation of land by aboriginal peoples, but their contribution to the building of Canada, and the special commitments made to them by successive governments. The protection of these rights, so recently and arduously achieved, whether looked at in their own right or as part of the larger concern with minorities, reflects an important underlying constitutional value."

Why not just wait until the court case is resolved?

95% of Alberta is unceded First Nations land. It is not a valid country without it - without the consent of the relevant First Nations, a separated Alberta would be a few municipalities enveloped by... Canada.

This is not a concern in Quebec, because the overwhelming majority of it is ceded land.

If ducks had two wheels, they'd be bicycles, and if there was anything in common between the two provinces, you might have a point.

There's, sadly, been a significant uptick in self destructive voting tendencies for certain voting demographics as of late.

it would also have a much lower chance of being put on the table.

the separatists are the people that heard trump say that, and said YES PLEASE

Québécois separatism is also driven by a single party with no plan for what to do with all the other groups. I also don’t think that an independent Quebec would be a good idea, but they have leveraged the idea to get equalization payments and increased voting rights. These concessions largely come at the expense of Alberta, so it shouldn’t be hard to see why people would be frustrated without any cia operations.

Albertan/Western Canadian identity is totally a thing, and has been around for a lot longer than this latest round of separatist sentiment. The west has been griping about unfair treatment from the federal government for over a century now, so 1) this isn't primarily driven by foreign interference and 2) it's not coming out of nowhere.

Whether it's a good idea is a different question. I doubt most Albertans want to be independent. I also think being a landlocked country with a resource economy means that you will always be subject to outside control, whether that be parliament in Ottawa or corporate offices in Dallas. It remains unclear if being independent will solve the issue of Alberta being land-locked.

Can't avoid gloating over this one. Just like the Palestinian identity was created and weaponized against Israel by the Arab world, now Canadians will get a taste of their own medicine courtesy of the Trump admin.

No, they're civilized.

No.

No. It's pretty clear that the Liberals have achieved dynasty status, only 25% of Canadians are net taxpayers, the rest live partially or fully on handouts, or are government employees whose income comes from taxes in the first place.

Most Canadians who are upset with the status quo are leaving or have already left. Last year saw a record amount of Canadians move to the US.

This is truly trolling escaping the Internet. It's by no means the first instance; "The future is already here—it's just not very evenly distributed". The best time to have started taking this seriously was probably October 2015 or something. The next best time is now. These performative fits by thoughtless Adult Children get backed by real money, for purposes mysterious to me, but they seem purposes dark enough it would be nice to have a working system that would investigate deeply and make illustrative examples out of the benefactors. Oh but for a working democracy or a healthy journalism, what might we find? Carve "Cui bono?" on my tombstone so when they plow the place over for tract housing to cram their useful fools into, maybe the rubble will catch a person's eye and make them wonder.

For what crime?

I know of two people that moved away from Canada and consider themselves refugees for various reasons. It seems... a little out there. But it is a thing.

By that framing you are saying that Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver should also all seek secession.

Likewise, you could say that NYC and LA should singularly secede from America by that same logic.

It doesn't track. There is no legal precedent. Alberta as an entity did not exist beyond Canada.

I mean.. it's not like it's Alberta that produces the oil. Oil is concentrated in smaller places than that, so why shouldn't those places then separate from Alberta?

Thats not hard to believe. An immigrant wouldnt be a part of some native separatist movement.

Maybe look for information instead of sharing uninformed opinions on a random anecdote?

Net federal tax by province for 2024:

   East:
   ON:  92,392M
   QC:  43,549M
   NS:   4,464M
   NB:   5,167M
   NL:   2,467M
   PE:     680M

   West:
   BC:  33,037M
   AB:  29,900M
   SK:   5,579M
   MB:   5,745M

   North:
   NT:     273M
   NU:     162M
   YT:     254M

Blaming immigrants … never gets old, does it?