A vote for Alberta sovereignty forces open the Constitution and gives all Canadians a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix the parts of Canada that are clearly broken. One of the parts most in need of fixing — as Western Standard’s Tom Fletcher and National Post’s Jamie Sarkonak remind us in their powerful articles about the recent Cowichan case — is how our courts are playing fast and loose with Canadian property rights. Consider, when and if a referendum on Alberta sovereignty is held, Albertans will be asked to vote on a clear question, such as: “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?” or “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?” The exact wording of the referendum question is not yet clear and is currently the subject of litigation.There are many Albertans who have already made up their minds to vote to remain in Canada, no matter what. Here is a typical comment from a Western Standard reader who is in that camp..BC nurse suspended, fined nearly $94,000 over ‘I ♥ JK Rowling’ billboard.“I am in Canada and will be staying [in] Canada. I also live in Alberta and will remain here as a loyal Canadian along with the majority of Albertans who are loyal Canadians.”Similarly, there are other Albertans who will vote in favour of Alberta sovereignty, no matter what. Here is a typical comment from one of those committed sovereigntists.“Sorry, but I'm done with this excuse of a dysfunctional country. I will not see it in my lifetime, but from here on in, I will always make the argument for independence or joining the USA as a separate republic. The Canadian constitution is so flawed there is no repairing it. The Laurention Elites will not allow it.”.To those Albertans, the case for Albertan independence has been clear for a long time. John Weissenberger makes the case for sovereignty very cogently here.Cory Morgan’s “Sovereigntist’s Handbook” makes an equally compelling argument here.And Jon Kruzensiki makes the economic case for combined Alberta-Saskatchewan independence here.There are also at least an equal number of Albertans who aren’t in either camp. .RUBENSTEIN: Is indigenous approval now mandatory?.They are waiting to hear the arguments for and against. They don’t know yet if they want to stay with the status quo or upset the apple cart by voting for Alberta sovereignty.But there is a fourth group that doesn’t fit into either of these categories. Call them “strategic voters”. They are the people who want to see Canada stay together but believe it can’t be successful if the status quo continues. They understand that the only possible way of changing the status quo is through the forcing of constitutional negotiations. And the only way that will happen is if a majority of Albertans vote to leave Canada. This article is written with that last group in mind. .But that fourth group doesn’t just include Albertans, it includes Canadians from other provinces as well. Because — and this is not generally understood — if Alberta votes in favour of sovereignty and constitutional discussions ensue, every Canadian gets a chance to take a crack at fixing the parts of Canada they believe are broken. That’s because a vote to leave forces open the constitution.Constitutional experts (I am not one) can help us navigate our way through the process that would then ensue. Historical examples, like Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord, might help us as well. However, we are in uncharted waters with the upcoming Alberta referendum. I write as a Canadian in that fourth category. And as a Canadian who wants to take a crack at fixing two parts of Canada most in need of fixing — namely, Canada’s Indian apartheid system, and our activist Supreme Court that is playing fast and loose with property rights, by recklessly expanding Section 35 — a section that was meant to protect aboriginal rights as they existed in 1982 and not to invent new rights..HANNAFORD: Mark Carney's first three months — and the next three to come.To get some clue about how an Alberta referendum might play out, I asked AI this question: “Would a vote by Alberta to separate necessitate constitutional discussions?” I got this answer: “Yes, a vote by Alberta to separate would necessitate constitutional discussions. While the specific legal and practical implications would be complex and depend on the nature of the separation attempt, any formal move towards secession would likely trigger a period of intense constitutional negotiations between Alberta and the federal government, and potentially with other provinces as well.”AI’s answer seems to be supported by most constitutional experts, such as here and here.If correct, this would necessarily mean that the other provinces would need to participate in those discussions in the event of a vote for sovereignty, possibly resulting in referendums or ratification debates by the legislatures in those provinces, as happened with both Meech Lake and Charlottetown..The status of indigenous groups as separate entities would obviously be a significant hurdle. But watching that process play out, with the chiefs employing their usual tactics to hang on to a system that works only for them, might also provide strong evidence to Albertans of exactly why the Indian apartheid system must be terminated if Alberta is to succeed. Simply put, Albertans might conclude that the antiquated Indian apartheid system created by the Indian Act acts as a huge drag on the economy, while keeping the majority of Indians in poverty. I suspect that most Albertans wouldn’t want an apartheid system in a sovereign Alberta. They would want a normal country, with equal rights for every citizen.Let me make my case. The Indian apartheid system was never meant to be permanent. Reserves were to provide temporary sanctuary until Indians could adjust to a modern world. Special wardship status placed Indians “in tutelage” until that adjustment could occur. It was meant to be a temporary bridge.That didn’t happen. Well-meaning politicians and judges proceeded to pile on economic benefits and other race-based rights to what was meant to be a temporary system. Their benevolence had the perverse result of cementing reserves and special status in place. Chiefs and their lawyers got richer, while most Indians stayed poorer - no matter how much money was dumped into a system that became so corrupt that it became known pejoratively as “The Indian Industry.”.RUBENSTEIN: Moral relativism haunts the CBC’s coverage of the war in Gaza.Canada’s Indian apartheid system acts as a millstone around the country’s neck. Despite massive infusions of money and ever-expanding special powers for the chiefs, the majority of Canada’s Indians live in a kind of poverty that can’t be fixed with money. Endless plans, projects, and government programs have only made things worse. The only solution is to begin the long, difficult, and expensive process of dismantling reserves and integrating marginalized Indians into the Canadian whole. The only possible way of achieving that goal is to open up the constitution and allow discussions to begin.Meanwhile, we have reached a point where the chiefs claim that all of rural and urban Canada is “their land”, that was stolen from their ancestors, and they must have the legal right to approve any project or legislation that is proposed by any corporation or legislative body. They have only been able to get to this point because an activist Supreme Court has completely upset property rights in Canada by radically expanding what were intended to be Section 35’s “existing” aboriginal rights — that is, aboriginal rights as of 1982 — to fit their vision of a Canada where large parts of the country are ceded to separate indigenous “nations.” This is all being done in the pursuit of the unelected court’s vision of “reconciliation.” Starting with its Delgamuukw decision in 1997, in which the Supreme Court literally invented the concept of “aboriginal title” that is now tearing British Columbia apart, activist judges began reshaping Canada. Normal rules of evidence and the usual safeguards to protect the public treasury were sacrificed to achieve that utopian goal..The Cowichan decision is only the natural culmination of that unfortunate decision by the Supreme Court to pursue “reconciliation” instead of staying in its lane. Similar cases will follow all across Canada, and the fundamental right to own property is under attack. Senior Ontario lawyer, Peter Best, explains this in detail in his important book “There Is No Difference.”Think about it. You want to buy a house. You do a title check, pay your money, and think you have clear title. Or, you buy a business or open a mine after doing your due diligence. You can’t possibly protect against a group of people coming together and — with zero written evidence — convincing a judge that they should have aboriginal title, because of their claim that their ancient ancestors fished there hundreds of years ago. According to the trial judge in the Cowichan case, this gives them a senior right to yours. The fact that they have “proved” their case by convincing the judge that a claimed great-great-great-grandfather told a great-great-grandfather, and on down the line, that it was so is exactly what Delgumuukw allowed. The Supreme Court decided that — only in the case of Indians — trial judges could negate property rights based on seventh and eighth-hand hearsay evidence. This is pure madness. A first year law student knows better..EYRE: Yann Martel on Jesus, MAGA, and ‘fiction and the politician’.None of this was supposed to happen. When the premiers were presented with Pierre Trudeau’s constitution in 1982, the senior premiers, like Alberta’s Peter Lougheed and Manitoba’s Sterling Lyon, refused to accept Section 35 until the word “existing” was added. They did this because they were worried that an activist Supreme Court would invent new aboriginal law, instead of simply sticking to their role of interpreting aboriginal law as it existed in 1982. It was only when they were assured by Trudeau and Jean Chretien that no future Supreme Court would disregard the clear intent of the framers of the constitution by inventing brand new aboriginal law that they signed on.Those assurances proved to be worth nothing. In Delgamuukw, and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court disregarded the clear intent of the framers of the constitution and launched a process that is now seriously undermining property rights and preventing normal economic development..Section 35 needs to be limited to what it was intended to be — a recognition of aboriginal rights as they existed in 1982. The apartheid system needs to go. A redefined Supreme Court that interprets — not makes — law must be created. There is no chance that political leaders will open up the constitution to fix these things. They were badly burned by the Meech Lake and Charlottetown experience.But a vote for sovereignty would open up the constitution and give Albertans the only chance they will get to set things right. Their list of demands would obviously include items like pipelines, immigration, and an unfair equalization system. But it should also include returning Section 35 to what it was supposed to be — a recognition of aboriginal rights as they existed in 1982. And it should also include an end to the Indian apartheid system. .EDITORIAL: BC nurse's $94,000 fine shows Canada's free speech crisis.Negotiations that follow a vote for sovereignty will ultimately result either in a new version of Canada or a sovereign Alberta, where all citizens are of equal status.The Cowichan case has been a wake up call for Canadians. The most basic right — the right to own property — has now been placed in jeopardy by an overreaching trial court judge. But let’s not be too hard on that judge. She was just trying to follow the decisions of an activist Supreme Court intent on pursuing their vision of “reconciliation” at any cost. Albertans have an opportunity to do something about it.
