Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tiktaalik | Hacker News Reader

Alberta's lands are part of a treaties that First Nations have with Canada. The literal reserve lands themselves are less relevant than the vast traditional territories that Alberta First Nations are sharing with Canada under some treaty obligation.

I'm not terribly familiar with the minute details of the numbered treaties that cover the area of Alberta, but I am aware from recent reporting that the local First Nations do not see Alberta as having any right to separate and take FN lands with them.

View on HN

Alberta would need the consent of the councils for Treaty 4, 6, 7 and 8 in order to take their land with them. The treaties are between various First Nations and the Crown of Canada and are not transferable to an independent Alberta without consent.

Some provinces have non-treaty land, acquired through land purchases or conquest. Quebec, for example, had the right to take roughly the southern third of its territory when it discussed separatism. But that's not the case with Alberta — it is entirely composed of treaty land.

This means that Canada cannot grant them independence, even if it were to accept the results of a referendum that meets Clarity Act requirements. That alone makes Alberta separatism a non-starter. There's no legal route for Alberta to separate from Canada without negotiating new treaties with the treaty councils in order to get their consent, and they've already signalled they are not willing to do so.

I genuinely wonder if and how that would hold though, you need the buck to stop somewhere, if Alberta were to vote to leave Canada you may call it illegal as you want to they won't just say "this is treaty land" and cancel their own referendum.

Say they separate politically and renege on the treaty, the first nations will go to the ICC? Or ask Canada to invade its own province? What support if any would the later have with the Canadian elector, sending the army to fight against other Canadians?

It's very similar to the old constitutional argument that separatism needs a "clear majority" which sparked questions that following a "yes" in Quebec the supreme court would have to statute on whether 51% is a "clear majority". Would Quebec actually have just accepted a ruling against them from a institution that is not really theirs?

My point is that legally the First Nations have the right to not consent to the separation of provinces from the country. Of course, it's always possible for parties to act illegally...

If Alberta did unilaterally declare independence (which would be illegal according to Reference Re Secession of Quebec [1998]), the First Nations have the right to call upon Canada to defend their treaty rights under the "peace and good order" terms of the treaties.

If Canada did grant Alberta independence without First Nations consent, or Canada refuses to defend their treaty rights, they would have a claim that Canada had violated their rights to self-determination under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which Canada ratified in 2021. But UNDRIP is a non-binding resolution, so I don't think they'd have a case with the ICC or ICJ (even assuming it had jurisdiction).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com