On Monday, Premier Danielle Smith laid out her government's approach to grassroots democracy, with a statement on citizens' initiative referenda. But in it, she added one puzzling statement, that her government was "fully committed to protecting, respecting and honouring the inherent rights of First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples."We had always assumed it was. So what was that about? And Inuit? In Alberta? .UPDATED: Smith opens door to independence referendum, will chair 'Alberta Next Panel' in escalating pushback against Ottawa .The following day, Western Standard legislative reporter James Snell asked the premier what a referendum question would look like, and whether negotiations with First Nations would have to precede the publication of a referendum question..Not surprisingly, Smith sidestepped the question. (Go to the 40 minute mark in the video.)"I do not know what a referendum question would look like, because yesterday I specifically said that we would not be bringing forward as a government a question on the issue of independence."It would, she added, be up to the people who wanted an independence referendum to draft their question with their lawyers. At present, there was no referendum question, no campaign and indeed the legislation not being passed, no structure for either.Still, she did say it. Which raises the question — a fair one for independence advocates to consider — what could protecting, respecting and honouring the inherent rights of First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples look like?.According to Statistics Canada, there are somewhat less than 3,000 people of Inuit ancestry in Alberta. However, the Inuit have no ancestral rights in Alberta.The situation with the Metis is more complex. They are not strictly speaking a 'treaty' people. However, as Alberta allocated them their settlements in northern Alberta, their ownership would logically have to be guaranteed by a putative new order of government, if not for reasons of honour, then to avoid needlessly giving 147,000 people a legitimate grievance.Likewise, other special rights they may now possess have been created by federal or Alberta legislation. Whatever their constitutionality, those advocating for independence would be poorl;y advised indeed, if they didn't confirm any rights and advantages the Metis may gathered over the years..Alberta chief says Danielle Smith 'not welcome here anymore' in flap over referendum bill .Indians, of course, have treaties which must be respected. But that does not mean aspiring to independence is 'pure madness,' as one Alberta chief described it, or that indigenous Canadians should have a veto over Alberta seeking a new constitutional relationship with Canada, or even leaving it altogether..It would take a constitutional amendment and from the invocation of the Clarity Act forward, the details of establishing Alberta as a sovereign state would take some working out. Still, Indians tried to block the patriation of the constitution in 1982 and failed. There is no guarantee that they would do better today if they tried to block Alberta's secession from Canada.)Admittedly, it is a complication that Treaties 4, 7, and 8 cross the borders of Alberta to include much of Saskatchewan, a significant part of BC, and a bit of the NWT. Still, the Government of Canada could transfer all its treaty obligations to Alberta, a process which this old royalist is delighted to point out would be made simpler if Alberta continued to use the British king as head of state.Bottom line; right now, there is no bottom line. What Premier Smith had in mind when she promised to protect Inuit rights in Alberta remains a mystery to me. Perhaps it was merely a block to those in the mainstream media attempting to generate and amplify a conflict story in which the Smith government goes head to head with Alberta's indigenous peoples..However, to those who wish to believe that the federal obligation to Canada's indigenous people is an impenetrable obstacle to others who desire a different relationship between Alberta and the rest of the country, just keep in mind that there is precedent.It was only 43 years ago that all of Canada's constitutional dilemmas — including those related to aboriginal affairs — had their final arbitration in the House of Lords, in London. But when the time came, Great Britain transferred these same treaty obligations to Canada...There is no reason in principle why these same obligations could not be similarly transferred to Alberta, were it agreed that the time had come to do it.
