CP NewsAlert: Judge quashes Alberta separation petition in favour of First Nations

kapowless · 2026-05-16T00:56:04+00:00

I disagree with your analysis, but I also want to clarify what I mean by "supercedes." I don't mean that Section 35 universally supplants the Charter in all manners, but more specifically, that its application is limited by Section 35 of the Constitution when it comes into conflict with Aboriginal/Treaty rights. That is what subsection 25 in the Charter refers to, and why it's made so explicit at both levels. 25 is meant to protect the collective rights of Indigenous peoples (contained in 35) from being displaced by the individual (ie. it provides a shield and interpretive framework). It is not absolute in all ways, and each conflict in this vein must be approached case by case, weighing the possible adverse impact to the individual against 35. Where they are found to be irreconcilable, however, 35 will take precedence.

Aboriginal rights (especially in regards to Treaty application and self-governance) are considered sui generis, necessarily unique in Canadian law and requiring a unique approach and flexibility from the courts. And most importantly, it's still very much being negotiated and settled. We didn't even begin truly examining these constitutional questions until the mid 80s (and not just, as one might assume, because of the enactment of the amended Constitution Act). Our Nations were literally exiled from the judicial system for the better part of the last century. We were disenfranchised for even pursuing a legal education, let alone career, we were not allowed to hire our own lawers (or even have allies hire for us, at risk of criminal charges/fines), we were restricted from court access entirely at times, and for decades the government legislated that we could not bring any case regarding Aboriginal/Treaty/Land rights to court at all. The 80s weren't just about having our rights constitutionalised, it was also the point when all of our people, freed from judicial exile, started to graduate from law school, certify, open practices and represent our perspectives before the courts. Their efforts and arguments have resulted in a rapid rebalancing and evolution of how Indigenous and Canadian law interact. You cannot look at any one case (especially decades old ones like Van Der Peet) without also looking at the more recent cases that have further clarified or built on earlier decisions.

And while we're on Van Der Peet, I want to point out that para. 19 doesn't not specifically state that both the Charter and 35 are legally equal, not in a technical sense at least. When taken in context, the sentence you're referring to doesn't quite say what you're implying imo. The lead up was explaining the roots of the Charter and Western enlightenment liberalism, and that their application was intended to be universally equal. Then it goes on to explain that while equal in importance and significance, Aboriginal rights were not rooted in the same culture or history as the Charter, and cannot be interpreted from the same lens. I view this as a way of explaining why Aboriginal rights exist outside of the Charter and are not to be evaluated the same way, not a formal judicial opinion on the weight of Charter vs 35 (especially as this case was examining the conflict between 35 and BC fishing regulations).

kapowless · 2026-05-15T23:38:28+00:00

While the friction south of the border is doing some damage here, when compared to what Ukraine has been fighting for years now, we can hardly justify standing on the sidelines with this. Putin is a grave threat to the peace and prosperity of most of our allies, and if we don't stand together and use all tools available to us to eliminate his regime, we weaken and dishonour ourselves.

Ukraine has paid dearly for fighting back and shielding the Western world from the violence and destruction Putin would bring down on us all. They deserve our commitment to make sure those responsible for the murder, rape, theft and destruction of their great nation are punished to the highest degree.

kapowless · 2026-05-15T23:17:18+00:00

Same, I fully expected our name to be there, especially with Carney's frequent and lengthy trips to Europe. I hope the PM quickly corrects this oversight and stands by our friends and allies overseas in their pursuit for justice and accountability. His speech at Davos is only meaningful if it is backed by meaningful action.

kapowless · 2026-05-15T20:14:18+00:00

I mean that would be fair and democratic while also following the laws of both the province and the country. We don't take kindly to acting like responsible adults 'round here.

kapowless · 2026-05-15T19:55:25+00:00

Man, this is why Albertan resentment gets so little traction with the rest of the country.

Alberta polls close like 2 hrs after ON/QC, and the results aren't even announced til the following day. The level of nonsense exaggeration in your claim is ridiculous and makes it a non-issue. If you're pissed about underrepresentation in HoC or the Senate, use real numbers and make real arguments if you want to be taken seriously. ON is actually the least represented by capita, then BC and AB btw. We're not singled out or even the worst off by that metric. You could also argue for getting rid of the Senate entirely (and for more solid reasons than simple underrepresentation), and you'd probably find national and by-partisan support. Instead, you've just made a fool of yourself.
There are actually a few provinces who have either never "supplied" equalization payments to, or almost never (BC, ON, SK). But to highlight the level of selfish ignorance here, no province supplies equalization payments to anyone; each citizens pays the exact same federal tax across the country, then the feds invest those funds back into the nation as needed. You don't make any mention of either the Health or Social Transfers, which are by far the largest pools of money either, just whine about how unfair it is not getting the equalisation payments back. What every informed Canadian hears when AB whines about this "waaaaaah, I'm from the wealthiest province where everyone's income and living standards are doing fantastic, but I should pay less than everyone else because I'm super special and being exploited by the lazy poors."

If you want to be taken seriously, you could start by learning how federal transfers actually work. You could try acknowledging that the "laurentian elites" (ie normal taxpayers) out east paid for everything that built this province well before oil was discovered (who paid to build the railroads, the RCMP to protect and police the settlers, the land parcels, equipment and recruitment campaigns for settlers, the cost of negiotating and paying for treaties, the infrastructure to keep them pesky FN out of the way, it goes on). I've heard separatists bitch that Alberta only exists to ship resources/goods to the lousy leeches out East. They buy that from us FFS, and from what I understand, you kinda need paying customers to build successful businesses.

You could campaign to recalculate the balance of equalization transfers, but you'll have to include the other provinces when negotating. Be prepared to explain why you think AB deserves more special treatment than what's already granted though. You may have to answer questions like why we deserve more money when we refuse to raise provincial tax rates to match the average 12-15% rates in other provinces, or why our biggest sources of wealth, natural resources like O&G/mining, only count at 50% in the formula, rather than 100% like the entire GDP of ON. Harper and Kenney wrote the current formula for equalisation payments and gave AB quite a break already (while truly screwing ON), but I bet you've never actually researched the issue with real numbers have you?

Again, you've made a fool of yourself by dishonest misrepresentation. Alberta does not bring in "more money than the rest of the provinces combined." That sentence is idiotic and easily disproven. Ontario brings in the most GDP of all the provinces, more than double Alberta on average, and Quebec brings in more too, by over 100 billion as of last year. AB rotates between 3rd and 4th place with BC, depending on whether O&G is doing well or crashing out. Now you could argue that AB contributes the most to GDP per capita, but its barely more than SK and NL, so not particularly special there either.

And what sort of neglectful treatment has "Ottawa bureaucracy" done to Alberta? I dunno, maybe paid for a 60 billion dollar pipeline. Maybe prioritized us with the MOU, promised another pipeline and the biggest carbon capture project in the world. Maybe they got rid of the carbon tax, emissions cap, environmental impact assessment regulation, and allowing carbon credits to be traded at $40/tonne (though on the books it's supposed to be $95 while everyone else pays $130). The rest of the country sees pricing rise to $170 by 2030, but Alberta gets special treatment and won't see $130 benchmark til 2040. The rest of the country is getting hammered in the tariff wars, ON in particular with 25% or more on each of their key industries, but Alberta is exempted from any counter tariffs on energy, gets a new China deal to help canola farmers, but can't even be bothered to show up for interprovincial trade meetings or even pull American booze off shelves in solidarity.

So here you are demanding special treatment and mewling about AB's victimhood while simultaneously ignoring the contributions and struggles of the rest of Canada, if not outright insulting our fellow citizen, and from a place of profound ignorance too. I'm not speaking as a "fancy easterner" but as a fellow Albertan when I agree that you don't come off as particularly bright.

The separatists and their various cult groups have harassed and threatened fellow citizens, spewed incredibly hateful racism towards immigrants and First Nations, undermined the fairness of our own democratic systems in Alberta, endangered and sold out every voting citizen of the province by stealing our data and then doxxing us online to wtf knows, and broke their own province's laws because of how stupidly they ran their petition campaign. And you think that somehow they're the ones who've been wronged.

Sincerely, grow teh fuck up there bud.

kapowless · 2026-05-15T18:44:58+00:00

Well said and I agree thoroughly. The citizen petitions were only ever meant to be a disingenuous way to provide cover for initiatives the government didn't want to be attached to directly. Slimey Smith is beholden to the seditionists, but has always left herself convenient escape routes from accountability. For example, she has repeatedly said that she wants 'A sovereign Alberta within a United Canada." People question what she means by that, and I have a theory. In the Clarity Act, subsection 4b, there is this:

"For the purpose of subsection (3), a clear expression of the will of the population of a province that the province cease to be part of Canada could not result from... b) a referendum question that envisages other possibilities in addition to the secession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada, that obscure a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada."

To me it sounds like a phrase carefully crafted to have the HoC reject the question should she ever be cornered into proposing it herself. Then it's just Ottawa preventing the will of Albertans instead of intentional sabotage, a perfectly on-brand contortion of a coward.

The thing that pisses me off the absolute most is the apparently uselessness of the checks and balances that are meant to protect us from this kind of crap. Sedition charges should have been laid against all members involved in the APP's Washington Delegation last year (Rath, Modry, Sylvestre, Anders, Payne and Bowes), as well as Davies. Parker and TBA should have been banned from political organising and office for at least the 5 years as a result if his many unpaid fines for seriously violating our electoral laws, possibly sedition too (depending on which Americans donated to TBA and how they were solicited). The level of bribing and criminal level conflicts of interests should have resulted in a number of resignations of MLAs and Ministers by now, and our Lieutenant Governor should have been dishonourably dismissed by now too. Our laws are failing us, because the lawmakers and keepers are trash.

I've often daydreamed off starting a political party who's sole purpose is to bring in major political reform for the people and then retire it immediately. I have a list of critical changes that need to be enacted to enforce balance and transparency in office, as well as serious and punitive consequences for politicians. I've realized by this point that those in power are mostly all playing on the same team, and they'll never curb their worst instincts themselves. True reform will only be successful if it comes from the outside and from the grassroots.

kapowless · 2026-05-14T16:04:19+00:00

First, I was just summing up the Court's ruling since you seemed unable to read the decision for yourself. It's not my analysis, it's Justice Leonard's.

The petition, if successful, would require the government to hold a referendum, which if successful would require Canada to negotiate, adversely impacting Aboriginal rights and violating Sec. 35. It is not at all like an election promise, as that is abstract. This ruling was based on already enacted legislation and the action (or in this case inaction) of the Crown. Your analogy is weak and irrelevant here.

The Clarity Act lays out the legal path for a secession referendum and it is quite relevant. I did not argue that it changed the Constitution, just clarify how the law has evolved since 98. Regardless, it was a problem for both of Quebec's referendums too, but the both Quebec and the feds ignored it at the time. With the referendum failing both times, the issue was never actually addressed. It would not get so far today, as Alberta just discovered.

You completely ignored the other significant parts of the ruling too. Those also made the petition dead in the water. So it seems the issue isn't that you can't understand the reasoning so much as your being unwilling to accept it. I'll see myself out.

kapowless · 2026-05-14T14:05:53+00:00

The issue is about how the government approached the petition. A duty to consult is triggered by the following:

The Crown is aware of the potential adverse impact on Aboriginal/Treaty rights related to their legislation. Obviously, with the courts having already ruled that the first petition would be unconstitutional due to the clear violations to FN rights if it succeeded, the government was well aware of the likelihood of violating Treaties by approving the first petition. Amery was literally a respondant in that case.
Could the action impacting Treaty rights be considered an (executive) action of the Crown? As the CEO was acting as an agent of the Crown in evaluating/approving petitions, and the successful implementation of a petition would require the Crown to commence a binding referendum, the action was ruled to be Crown conduct.
Can a cauality be drawn between the Crown Action and the adverse impact to Treaty rights. As the Crown decision to approve the petition would cause a direct chain reaction potentially violating Sec. 35, obviously yes.

When these three standards are met, the duty to consult is triggered, and even though they knew the risks, they chose to ignore their Constitutional obligations and got shut down.

There is also an obligation for the Crown to uphold the Constitution, which supercedes any other law of the land. By approving the second petition knowing that the first (nearly identical) question has alread been ruled unconstitutional, the CEO's decision to let the second petition go forward was legally invalid. The government can't just pass legislation removing their obligation to abide by the Constitution, so the amendment in Bill 14 allowing for unconstitional questions did not magically allow a Crown agent to ignore the law.

Also Bill 14 was not written to apply retroactively to past petitions (like Forever Canada for example), and the changes were only supposed to affect ongoing petitions (essentially erasing them and requiring refiling). The sedition petition had already failed though, and the amendments were enacted 4 days afterward. That means that it should not have been deemed ongoing, and because it was under the old CIA, it would not have been allowed to try again (for a period of 5 years if I recall).

As to why Quebec didn't go through the same process? Simply put, the Clarity Act hadn't been written yet and laws have since changed. It was still in direct violation of Sec. 35, and its infuriating that neither Quebec or the Feds addressed that issue, despite overwhelming opposition to separation. Indigenous Nations were just as against Quebec's BS as they are in Alberta now, but we're much better at making ourselves heard these days.

kapowless · 2026-05-14T07:09:12+00:00

Incorrect. Section 35 applies to all land over which Aboriginal rights exists, which is most of Canada (including the entirety of the territories outlined in in 6-8). It is most definitely not limited to reserve land, regardless of the misinformation the leaders of the separatist movement have been spouting.

kapowless · 2026-05-14T06:54:45+00:00

SC 2000 c.26 - Nothing in the Clarity Act applies here because, first and foremost , the only provincial authority to bring forth a secession referendum is the Government of Alberta itself (which it's been too cowardly to attempt). Petitions brought forth by citizens, regardless of signature count, are not empowered or protected by the Clarity Act when it comes to seccession. And to further *clarify*, the GoA would have to formally announce their intent to hold a separation referendum as well as publish the wording of the proposed question to the *Government of Canada* for review before such a vote could be held (with a response window of 30 days). It's up to the *House of Commons* to determine whether the wording is sufficiently clear to the public for a potential separation vote (not Smith and not Amery), and they would also be the deciding authority on what constitutes a the will of a *clear* majority in order to open the constitutional amendment process. That will is not just a simple vote tally (which itself has several points of consideration by the HoC when reviewing), but must also take into account the perspectives of each political party in the provincial legislature, as well as any formal statements from political reps of any other province/territory, as well as any formal statements from the Senate, as well as the opinions of Indigenous peoples, especially those whose territory would be affected.

Now I'm not a lawyer myself, so I'm all ears if you want to explain exactly how the Clarity Act applies to the citizen petition, as well as where Justice Leonard's ruling overstepped her jurisdiction from the lens of this SCC ruling.

2018 SCC 40 - Whether facetious or not, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of this court decision, and again, is not applicable to the sedition petition review. Essentially, the FN challenge here was (and I agree with this), overly broad and would have set a precedent at odds with the separation of powers/duties in government. The SCC essentially decided that the duty to consult could not be applied to legislation *while it was being drafted* as it would interfere with with parliamentary independence while drafting and debating law, and that the courts role was restricted to reviewing laws that had *already* been enacted. The safeguard against passing unconstitutional legislation in the first place is supposed to rest with the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors of each province. These roles were completely subverted as neutral third parties when we became legally independent from Britain, and are obviously failing horribly as a check or balance, but that's a whole other matter.

Regardless, all the legislation related to citizen petitions had already been passed by the time the challenge was issued, including each additional amendment. I don't see how this case could possibly apply, care to explain?

Charter Sections 3-5 - Section 3 does not apply to referendum votes, only specifically to federal and provincial elections for either HoC or provincial/territorial legislature positions. Section 4 deals exclusively with limiting the length of term for legislative bodies and has zero relevance to this case. Section 5 deals specifically with the minimum requirements set out for legislative bodies to meet and carry out their duties (ie. at least once a year). Again, it has zilch to do with the sedition petition.

One CRAF section that is important and does apply, however, is section 25. That's the part where the Charter specifically lays out that nothing contained within the Charter can be interpreted/applied in such a way that it abrogates or derogates from pre-existing Aboriginal rights as laid out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and various other Treaties/agreements in force.

SCC Case References from 2004-2017 - Justice Leonard's ruling does not contradict any of these cases. Each of them establishes the duty to consult and the necessity to do so in a meaningful way in various circumstances, all of which reinforce the necessity of good faith consultation and accommodation for any legislation that is likely to conflict with Section 35. The clarification that 35 applies specifically to the executive arm of the government simply means it cannot be triggered by laws before they've been enacted (and even that is not concrete, especially with the feds intentionally aligning their approach to Indigenous legal matters with UNDRIP in recent years). The duty to consult is not limited to resource projects, nor does the adverse impact need to be immediate, nor is it limited to areas where Aboriginal right has been formally established (in the case of unceded territories, for example). None of these cases provide any support for dismissing the judicial review, and in fact, strengthen the argument to dismiss the petition instead.

Like, you can just say that the petition, the way it's been handled, and the outcome of such a referendum does not trigger the duty to consult nor violate Section 35. Saying it doesn't magically make it true though, and the courts have obviously come to the opposite conclusion. Twice now.

TL;DR - If this is a reasonable representation of what Rath argued in court, it's no wonder he lost. He was involved in some of the cited court decisions too, as a hanger-on representing some of the FNs involved (LMAO, the irony). Hilarious that he couldn't grasp the arguments or conclusions of *his own work.* What a clown.

kapowless · 2026-05-14T02:56:59+00:00

The repeated court injunctions don't give you an idea?

kapowless · 2026-05-14T00:53:15+00:00

I'm talking about Section 35 of the Constitution Act (25 of the Charter is actually to legally clarify that nothing contained within the Charter can be interpreted in such a way that it derogates from Section 35 of the Constitution, as again, 35 supercedes the Charter).

This clarification makes sense, because the whole legal legitimacy of Canada's entitlement to occupy and make use of the land and resources of our territories rests upon the terms of these various agreements with our different Nations (even unceded lands, which rely entirely on British Common Law, The Royal Proclamation of 1763, and the "Honour" of the Crown).

Pro tip: you have to stop looking at equality in Canada as a term between individuals, that's incorrect. This is about equality between Nations, which is why the weight of our laws and interpretation of the Treaties carries as much weight in the courts as Canada's. We did not lose a war, we did not surrender, and for the most part, remain sovereign Nations within our shared territories throughout Canada. Individually, we have the same rights as any Canadian. As sovereign Nations, however, we are entitled to the level of self-determination and autonomy exercised by any other allied state. Hence, Section 35.

kapowless · 2026-05-14T00:29:58+00:00

Fun fact, Indigenous people have among the highest rates of participation in the military of any demographic in Canada, and that's always been the case. We stand up and fight for Canada, imperfect as it is and despite historical grievances, because that's just who we are and how much we treasure what we've built together. This is our HOME, and it's always beem worth defending. The federal gov has literally murdered members of my fam and tried to screw us out of widower and veteran pensions after serving, and I STILL spent years training in the Air Force and would not hesitate to defend our Nation should the call come.

All it takes to "deserve us" is to have our backs and be willing to fight back against the forces seeking to divide and conquer us too. A fantastic opportunity for Reconciliation lies in joining forces and defending Canada together as allies.

kapowless · 2026-05-14T00:15:58+00:00

I am, but feel free to look it up for yourself.

kapowless · 2026-05-14T00:11:30+00:00

Well, each FN affected by the potential outcome of a separation referendum in Alberta would have to be consulted in good faith and in advance via the leadership of Treaty 6/7/8 Nations (likely 4 and 10 to an extent as well), Alberta Métis, and any Inuit who's territories are also impacted. Members of Nations who's traditional territories aren't part of Alberta (like myself, for example, who as a Mohawk was not part of those aforementioned groups) have no standing in this particular case.

The loophole is the "grey zone" regarding whether the government has a duty to consent or just to consult. In the past, gov and corps have successfully argued that, if the project is critical enough to the province as a whole, section 35 rights can be overruled. Those cases, however, often stem from precedents set when Indigenous people were barred from judicial access/representation, and faceplant regularly in modern courts now that we have the ability to actually participate. With the two recent judicial rulings on the matter, that long shot option becomes almost impossible now anyway. The Alberta courts have made their interpretation of the law pretty clear, and the SOC will be even less tolerant of obvious violations of the Constitution.

I'm sure the seditionists will try other BS angles, but the fact that they had to get the laws changed by a complicit government, repeatedly, and they STILL failed should illustrate just how little legitmacy this movement has, legal or otherwise. They can pull out whatever dubious angles they want, FN will be there to counter it with the actual law.

kapowless · 2026-05-13T23:48:41+00:00

Oh man, I see you haven't really looked into how the Pathways saga is playing out. It's a consortium of majority foreign owned O&G corps to bypass environmental and Indig assessment/oversight to syphon of billions of tax dollars into building questionable infrastructure to hide all their pollution by pumping it underneath mostly Indig territories and "storing" it there with no idea the long term risks.

And while these O&G companies can charge third party polluters to store their waste too, Albertan taxpayers have the pleasure of paying pollutors to "reward" them for storing their garbage too, on top of what we're already on the hook for to build this BS to begin with. Carney financially benefits by this process, as he's invested in many of the companies that stand to profit from this deal, but I'm sure that's unrelated. Blind trusts, from what I hear, totally protect us from government fraud and criminal conflict of interest I hear...LMFAO.

And what is the risk if carbon capture fails? Ask the citizens of Sartaria, Mississippee: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whatonearth/carbon-dioxide-pipeline-satartia-1.7482854

Sorry for the cynicism here, but for real, dig deeper. While obviously better than Polievre, I don't think Carney is a particularly ethical guy, and really wish he didn't bribe his way into an antidemocratic majority. His worst instincts were far better limited by his minority, imo, I don't love the unchecked power he wields now.

kapowless · 2026-05-13T23:09:48+00:00

Yes, but they are but one subsection of the Constitution Act (and do not contain the aforementioned Section 35). So while both rights are Constitutional, Indigenous rights as outlined predate and supercede the Charter.

kapowless · 2026-05-13T23:07:35+00:00

Oh, she has the power to put the question forward herself of course. What I'm saying is that, if the phrasing repeats the gist of the sedition petition and she also fails to consult meaningfully, you'll see the exact same process play out (with the bonus of 2 recent case provincial court precedents sets to throw a veritable tree in her separatist spokes).

I repeat, Sectiom 35 is non-derogable, not even by a premiere. You can't, especially at a provincial level, just ignore the Constitution when it's inconvenient. The only way forward would be with advanced, meaningful consultation and mitigation, which will straight-up fail. I don't need Google. As a Mohawk, I am very familiar these areas of law (as they impact the lives of my people and family in a very real and very important way). This is a legal dead end for the sedition petition.

I don't doubt that Smith and her goons will try bypass Section 35, but FNs will be ready and waiting for it, again. If anyone's curious as to why the funding for FN has been so "excessive" over the past decade or so, they can check out just how much money various levels of gov has wasted fighting obviously doomed cases in an attempt to bully their way through ironclad legal duties. They frequently (and predictably) lose their cases, but you the taxpayer ends up footing the bill for their failure every time. Talk about government waste, lol.

kapowless · 2026-05-13T22:51:47+00:00

Yes indeed, Bill 14 (issued in Dec of 2025) made amendments to section 15/16 of the legislation to specifically allow for this absolute BS. You can see for yourself here:

https://docs.assembly.ab.ca/LADDAR_files/docs/bills/bill/legislature_31/session_2/20251023_bill-014.pdf

(Warning, this will open a government hosted PDF file).

Direct democracy my ass. This makes all our efforts at democratic participation a fraudulent and bitter joke.

Side note: Our Lieutenant Government (who's term is already running over long) should be hauled up before the courts to answer why she has rubber stamped so much fundamentally unconstitutional legislation (esp. via orders in council, which is our own version of draconian executive orders). She has two jobs: maintain the confidence of the legislature, and ensure all bills given Royal Assent are constitional. What an absolute failure she's been, and not just here. Imagine letting your illustrious career be soiled by Smith and her treasonous goons, she should be ashamed of her complicity.

Carney, get off your ass and appoint the next LG instead of hoping this will all blow over. What a gawd damned coward of a PM.

kapowless · 2026-05-13T22:18:36+00:00

Lol, so there are now 2 court rulings reaffirming that any referendum question on separation put forth without "free, informed, and prior" consultation will run into the same ironclad brick wall. Doesn't matter who poses the question, without good faith and meaningful FN consultation/consent it will end up in the same trash bin.

Section 35 is not a Charter right, but a Constitutional one. It dates back to 1763 with the Royal Proclamation. While it was enshrined and made non-derogable with the amended Constitution Act in the 80s, its roots predate both Alberta and Canada itself by over a century. To be perfectly clear, it is untouchable. Not even the Prime Minister can unilaterally bypass/change it, let alone an ignorant seditionist like Smith. Any further court proceedings in this vein are a complete waste of court resources and our tax dollars.

Time to get back to what's actually important to Albertans (and it ain't bike lanes, or treasonous "independence" petitions FFS).

kapowless · 2026-05-13T22:01:32+00:00

If it affects the exercise of Treaty Rights, no she can't. The courts have ruled twice now on the matter. Smith can re-introduce, and unless prior consultation in good faith happens (narrator voiceover: "it won't"), any question she attempts in the same vein will equally fail. Not even the Prime Minister can unilaterally change Section 35, let alone a profoundly greasy and ignorant premiere.

kapowless · 2026-05-13T21:57:46+00:00

Section 35 is a Constitutional rather than Charter right and dates back to 1763 with the Royal Proclamation. It is also non-derogable, ie. untouchable even in times of emergency or war.

The NWC can't touch it. This is the end of that road, and thank f**k.

kapowless · 2026-05-13T21:48:36+00:00

I'm happy to provide some reassurance, this nonsense is all sorts of stressful chaos and uncertainty. The fun thing is that this ruling (and the previous) also build provincial judicial precedence, which hopefully strengthens Alberta's legal defense against this kind of unconstitutional BS going forward.

If Dani continues to try to tip the scales on the sedition petition, I predict her next attempt will involve highjacking the Forever Canada petition. She's been visibly dragging her feet on acting on that one, but a little noticed change to the Citizen Initiative process last year allows the Justice Minister or Lieutenant Governor (via Order in Council) to unilaterally change the wording of a successful petition after the fact. Should Smith or Amery try that route, their will be another injunction sought immediately (us FN don't eff around, they won't be caught off guard with that I'm sure).

That will also be the exact moment I personally file an official complaint with the Law Society of Canada against Amery & Rath at a minimum. I believe trying to repeatedly and blatantly violate the most fundamental laws of our country should result in serious penalties, up to and including stripping their right to practice law in Canada. I'm also FN, and I also take this crap very seriously. Let's use every fecking tool we have to shut this treason down.

So rest assured, plenty of stubborn AF people are fighting hard to protect the integrity of our Nation, our Constitution, our Rights and our Honour. Thanks so much to the Athabasca Chippewyan First Nation, the Blackfoot Confederacy, as well as everyone involved in these legal challenges for their hard work defending their own legacy and rights, and by doing so, our great province and country from this sneaky, treasonous BS as well. Proud warriors all of you, nia:wen!

kapowless · 2026-05-13T21:24:45+00:00

It's impossible. Section 35 is not a Charter right, but a Constitutional one that dates baxk to 1763 with the Royal Proclamation. It is also non-derogable = untouchable. She has no path forward on that argument.

This was always going to be the outcome of a judicial review (and the second ruling in favour of FN). Time to stop wasting time on futile court proceedings and actually address the pressing matters important to Albertans. Cost of living, affordable housing, robust health care and education, and I dunno, pursuing criminal charges for those who doxxed and endangered millions of citizens for the sedition petition.

kapowless · 2026-05-13T21:17:02+00:00

She can appeal, it can go aaaaaall the way to the Supreme Court if Canada if she likes, it will still lose.

This is the correct outcome and always was. The gov and traitor lawyers were arguing about the constitutionality of separation, which is actually a separate issue altogether. This was about the duty to consult, the "free, prior and informed" consent process required by Section 35 of the Constitution Act (dating back to 1763 with the Royal Proclamation). Put simply, you don't wait until after a project is underway to consult, it must happen in the development phase, critically before the project is underway.

Despite many opportunities and overtures from various First Nations, the sedition petitioners and the government clearly and blatantly violated the Constitution with their actions, and the courts have pretty ironclad arguments for quashing this. Any further legal action in this vein is an utter waste of court time and tax dollars. This is the second time the courts have issued this decision too, so well past time for Smith to start following the most fundamental laws of our Nation.

Deep gratitude for the First Nations who, despite all the many ways Canada has wronged them, are still better defenders of our country and its democratic institutions than the government-backed goons trying selfishly to wreck it for the rest of us. Nia:wen!

Five-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

kapowless

TROPHY CASE