To the Crown fuckwit.
You seem to have left out the key point. Being ‘ the crown and it’s successors’.
Successors: Whoever lawfully succeeds to sovereign authority over the land
No. You are not understanding the phrase.
The crown is the current reigning monarch, in this case King Charles II. His successors are the people in the line of succession. In this case, Prince William, Prince of Wales.
Treaties were with the Crown. Alberta is not a successor to the Crown. Treaties will not simply be transferred to Alberta. This is not how it works. This is not how any of this works.
So you are saying that if Canada drops the monarchy then king charles has to continue to support the natives? He can use all the crown land he gets to keep to pay them!
That’s exactly the case. The treaties are with the Crown, not Canada, and the process of removing the monarchy would be incredibly complex with a need to renegotiate those treaties (and parts of Canada’s Constitution).
I don’t know how strong First Nations support is for the monarchy (I’m guessing “not much”) but I somehow doubt they’d agree to simply performing a Find and Replace to insert the name “Canada" without wanting to also address other issues in each treaty.
No.
If you read what I posted above, I said nothing even remotely like this. I explained to you what “successors” means, and that Alberta would not automatically take over treaty rights that belong to The Crown. In Canada, The Crown is represented by the Governor General, who follows the Constitution.
I don’t think that making up words that I did not say helps your argument here.
I can’t believe I have to explain this.
From the government of Canada’s website: About Treaties
Part way down the article you will find this sentence:
The Crown is the legal name for the British and later Canadian federal, provincial and territorial governments.
The Crown definition:
The term Crown incorporates all the rights, power, claims and prerogative of the government, whether administrative, legislative, or judicial.
The point is: Alberta would not simply “inherit” the treaty lands and the treaty language the day after a hypothetical separation vote. That’s not how it works. There would be a LOT of negotiation, with several parties and many first nations have indicated that they would not be interested. At all.
All this farce is accomplishing is getting Rath’s name in the newspaper and depressing business confidence in investing in Alberta.
See also “Brexit” where the Brexiteers loudly assumed that Britain Out would simply seamlessly inherit all the deals that Britain In already had. But only the ones the Brexiteers felt advantageous. The ones that pissed them off, that motivated the desire to Brexit in the first place, would simply evaporate into thin air.
The idea their counterparties had any input or stake in all these agreements or might vent their spleen in retaliation was conveniently ignored. Or perhaps maliciously ignored.
Reality has shown there is nothing “seamless” about a devolution or a secession.
First Nations chiefs explain the lawsuit they’ve brought against all parties involved in violating the constitutionally enshrined rights to the land that Alberta now wants to offer up in separating from Canada.
Side note: Just check out the full, rambling, conspiracy laden, utter garbage that was the interview from Rath in the above clip. Lying snake oil salesman.
Everything would need to be negotiated. Your argument is a straw man. What the law actually says is that treaties were made with the Crown as sovereign authority over the territory, and when sovereignty changes, obligations follow the successor governing authority unless renegotiated. That is how state succession works and how Canada itself inherited treaty obligations from the Imperial Crown. But the treaties ceded the land. It is no longer theirs.
The new country of Alberta does not need to honor any treaty. It will make its own new ones. BUT not honoring a treaty especially one that ceded land based on conditions would likely require a remedy. Hence negotiations. There is no veto by anyone on the Canadian side. Negotiations aren’t about permission to leave, but the settlement as part of the divorce. Alberta chooses, not Canada.
Yes, there would be negotiations about administration, funding, and implementation but that is very different from saying First Nations, or anyone else, have a unilateral veto over Alberta even asking its own citizens a question. Treaties ceded land; they did not reserve sovereignty, and Canadian courts have never held that Indigenous consent is required for a province to hold a referendum.
As for business confidence, uncertainty is driven far more by Liberal over-reach and uncompetitive regulations. The $500B in lost investments isn’t due to some small minority of people you like to keep pointing out. It’s due to bad governance from the Federal government. So, don’t pretend for a second that you care about Alberta’s economy. It is pretty apparent that Liberals and their supporters don’t care about the Canadian economy, either.
These statements conflict with each other. Either Alberta is the successor state and assumes the obligations of the treaty or you abrogate the treaty and then you also abrogate the ceding of the land. You don’t get to have your oil and eat it too.
Wow, that sure sounds like a lot of money!
I don’t suppose you happen to have a list of these investments? And also the part where they specifically said “we love Alberta and want to invest there but the Canadian government sucks so much we’re going to take our lucrative business elsewhere!” Energy East may be an example of this but that pipeline was only 15.7 billion so where’s the other 484.3 billion?
And can you show me how life improved for the people where this money eventually landed? Such a competitive, business-friendly landscape with no Trudeaus to haunt their dreams and foul their plans must certainly be a paradise on Earth!
Ah,that’s really going to convince folks to join your cause. Especially First Nations.
I suggest you use that statement a lot. “The New Country Of Alberta Does Not Need To Honour Any Treaty” Has a nice ring to it. I have changed the spelling of “Honour” to the correct one for you.
Ah, so you think the pipeline is the investment lost? You do realize that a ‘pipeline’ carries product. The product from one pipeline equals almost the total amount that the auto sector generates. So, when shitheads like Truedope cancel a pipeline, ONE SINGLE PIPELINE, they are almost cancelling the equivalent of the total auto sector in Ontario. And we’ve seen how upset people get when even one plant shuts down there. The auto sector is 5% of the Ontario GDP? As Alberta’s gdp is half Ontarios, imagine the lack of growth that is removed because of it. But Ontario’s workers are more important than Albertan’s. We know this just with comments like yours.
Or lets compare Quebec’s air craft industry. This is an even more comparable industry. Cancel the entire industry and it is the equivalent of a single 1MMb/d pipeline. What would happen if Trudeau had cancelled that industry?
And you wonder why many Albertan’s are tired of this BS.
Why would we honor your treaties as a new country? We’d make our own. Anything else is negotiated exactly like the Supreme court ruled.
I get it that you don’t like us following the law and doing this by asking citizens what they actually want, that being so foreign to the New World Order where dictates are expected to be followed from the dear leaders, but we’ll just take our chances and figure it out on our own and make our own deals.
Just so we’re on the same page here, I have no objection to Alberta or Albertans making money. I just think this pipeline that is supposed to be the solution won’t be as “easy money” as you think it is, even if you have a sympathetic government in Ottawa. But if Alberta can figure out a way to teleport oil to the coast, so be it. (Having said that, the teleportation industry will be much more lucrative than the resource sector.)
But again, as regards pipelines, feel free to show me the examples of where Canada’s failure led to someone else’s success. I don’t share this zero-sum vision of how the world works so you’re going to have to convince me. Anger and resentment isn’t moving the needle here. I’m not mad about what Trudeau should have done. Should in one hand and shit in the other.
Pipelines don’t create oil. They lower transport costs, reduce the price discount and improve reliability. That oil is already being produced and sold. But with a pipeline, you can reduce the discount on it by as much as $5 per barrel! That makes your million barrel per day pipeline generate 1.8 billion dollars per year (as opposed to the Ontario auto sector with its 16-20 billion per year of direct GDP or Quebec’s aerospace pulling in 18-20 billion annually).
You are counting the full value of the oil as if it is 1 million bpd x $80/barrel which would give you 29 billion per year. But a new pipeline doesn’t give you the full value. It is simply a different way of moving existing product around, with a little more protection against price swings. And you can see this in action by looking at the economic effect of Trans Mountain. Which by the way, is only making money right now because they created a shell company with no employees (TMP Finance) and then transferred over billions of dollars in debt so they wouldn’t have to pay the interest on it any more.
There is a fantastic article here discussing further details about Trans Mountain and how this “money-making” pipeline might still continue to cost billions in taxpayer dollars:
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2025/12/23/Trans-Mountain-Profitability-Accounting-Illusion/
Sorry, if you’ve read the thread then you know that Canadian companies that were going to build pipelines in Canada are now building them in places like Texas. A little company you may not have heard of that used to be based in Canada, I think they are called ‘Brookfield’, builds and funds pipelines all over the world, just not in Canada. They are also experts in carbon capture….
So it follows:
- Roads don’t increase trade
- Ports don’t increase exports
- Power grids don’t increase manufacturing
- Runways don’t increase flights
Yes, improving the supply chain allows companies to make more investments in production and eventually increase supply. But taking huge taxes such as carbon taxes will take away the benefit of market access and cheaper transport. So, you’ve proven my point for me.
Maybe if it wasn’t built by the government it would be making money and would cost less to use? Maybe if the government hadn’t kept moving the goal posts and done its job consulting with indigenous, it wouldn’t have had buy it to save face? Maybe if the approvals are predictable and final, companies would still be building in Canada. Many things left out of a severely biased article.
Kinder Morgan continues to build billions of dollars of pipelines in North America. Just not in Canada where the risk is too great.
You do realize, DWMarch, that some people are unconvinceable no matter what you present.