Grant A. Brown has a DPhil in political philosophy from Oxford University and an LL.B. from the University of Alberta. Now retired, his career includes teaching at the University of Lethbridge, practicing law in Edmonton, and running a B&B in Stratford, Ontario. He returned to Alberta in 2022 to support Alberta independence. I will leave it to others to argue with the crazies — including Alberta's crazy Trudeau-appointed justices — who think it is necessary to consult with First Nations before the government can even ask Albertans a constitutional question in a referendum. I try not to waste my time making plain and obvious arguments that have been made many times already, to little practical effect.Instead, I will accept for the sake of argument the proposition that First Nations must be consulted in advance of an independence referendum, and ask those like Wab Kinew and Jason Kenney who are in a lather about this whether the following proposal meets with their approval. My proposal is that the government of Alberta kick off the process of independence by bypassing the tribal Chiefs entirely, and instead give rank-and-file Treaty Indians an opportunity to be consulted via a referendum open only to them. The question would be: "Do you wish to retain your Treaty rights as interpreted by Canadian courts, and to remain dependents of the Government of Canada under the Indian Act; or do you wish to join an independent Alberta as equal citizens?"If a majority of grassroots Treaty Indians were to vote for the latter option, I put it to Kinew and Kenney and their federalist allies that the duty to consult has been met and that they would then have a duty to proceed with a province-wide referendum on the question of independence. Indeed, those federalists who believe that First Nations have a practical veto over such matters should feel obliged to vote for independence in a province-wide referendum on the grounds that voting to stay would frustrate the expressed will of the First Nations of this province. .The reason for giving Treaty Indians a taste of direct, grassroots democracy is that so many of them want it. They are tired of being kept in poverty by their grifting Chiefs who take foreign money to oppose development. The Chiefs and their hangers-on — lawyers and consultants and family members — make a great living by controlling the spigots, by being the choke-points for anything getting done in this country or on the reserve. Many of them are fabulously wealthy; stories of Chiefs taking million-dollar salaries and bonuses to govern tribes of a few dozen or a few hundred members are commonplace. They are the last group of self-interested people a reasonable person would want to consult on a constitutional matter affecting everyone. My suspicion is that this proposal would be flatly rejected by federalists, both Canadian and Albertan. They don't really believe in democracy or in consultation. They believe in winning. In short, they are unprincipled. I am not a hard-nosed “separatist,” but my decades-long academic publication record establishes that I am a hard-nosed equalist. In my view, we are all human beings with the exact same set of human rights. Any purported "right" that is not universal, that picks a subset of humanity out for special treatment, is not a right but rather a privilege — an unearned privilege based on irrelevant and immutable characteristics. I want to end the system that pervades contemporary Canada of special privileges for every intersectional identity group progressives can conjure up. That is one of the main reasons that I support independence. Independence from Canada holds the only genuine prospect for ending the "disadvantage Olympics" that federalists love to game. .As a hard-nosed equalist, I would go further down the consultation-by-referendum path than many others in the independence movement might. I maintain that every First Nation is entitled to the same choice as every Albertan is: to stay with Canada, or join an independent Alberta as an equal citizen. Any First Nation which votes to remain in Canada should be accommodated by being designated an enclave of Canada within Alberta's borders. They may continue having their Treaty rights administered by Ottawa; they may continue to be dependents under the Indian Act. If they don't want change, that is their choice. Nor is this an impractical solution to a difficult conundrum. Examples of perfectly functional enclaves exist in the world. Ceuta and Melilla are Spanish enclaves inside of Morocco; as is Llivia within France. West Berlin was a West German enclave within East Germany for decades. Closer to home, the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon are French enclaves within Canadian territorial waters. In Alberta's case, the arrangement would be both simpler and smoother: there would be no practical need for any border controls between Alberta and Canadian First Nations enclaves; we could simply grant Treaty Indians dual citizenship and allow them to come and go according to Alberta law as they please. There is no need to make enemies, unless your goal is to frustrate the will of the people by causing conflict and strife. What say you, federalists? Do you have the courage of your convictions? Do you have principles? Will you grant Treaty Indians a vote as individuals in their future? Consider the gauntlet to have been thrown.Grant A. Brown has a DPhil in political philosophy from Oxford University and an LL.B. from the University of Alberta. Now retired, his career includes teaching at the University of Lethbridge, practicing law in Edmonton, and running a B&B in Stratford, Ontario. He returned to Alberta in 2022 to support Alberta independence.
